Rachel R J Kalf1, Raluca Mihaescu1, Suman Kundu1, Peter de Knijff2, Robert C Green3, A Cecile J W Janssens4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Human and Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. 1] Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands [2] Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The promise of personalized genomics for common complex diseases depends, in part, on the ability to predict genetic risks on the basis of single nucleotide polymorphisms. We examined and compared the methods of three companies (23andMe, deCODEme, and Navigenics) that have offered direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. METHODS: We simulated genotype data for 100,000 individuals on the basis of published genotype frequencies and predicted disease risks using the methods of the companies. Predictive ability for six diseases was assessed by the AUC. RESULTS: AUC values differed among the diseases and among the companies. The highest values of the AUC were observed for age-related macular degeneration, celiac disease, and Crohn disease. The largest difference among the companies was found for celiac disease: the AUC was 0.73 for 23andMe and 0.82 for deCODEme. Predicted risks differed substantially among the companies as a result of differences in the sets of single nucleotide polymorphisms selected and the average population risks selected by the companies, and in the formulas used for the calculation of risks. CONCLUSION: Future efforts to design predictive models for the genomics of common complex diseases may benefit from understanding the strengths and limitations of the predictive algorithms designed by these early companies.
PURPOSE: The promise of personalized genomics for common complex diseases depends, in part, on the ability to predict genetic risks on the basis of single nucleotide polymorphisms. We examined and compared the methods of three companies (23andMe, deCODEme, and Navigenics) that have offered direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. METHODS: We simulated genotype data for 100,000 individuals on the basis of published genotype frequencies and predicted disease risks using the methods of the companies. Predictive ability for six diseases was assessed by the AUC. RESULTS: AUC values differed among the diseases and among the companies. The highest values of the AUC were observed for age-related macular degeneration, celiac disease, and Crohn disease. The largest difference among the companies was found for celiac disease: the AUC was 0.73 for 23andMe and 0.82 for deCODEme. Predicted risks differed substantially among the companies as a result of differences in the sets of single nucleotide polymorphisms selected and the average population risks selected by the companies, and in the formulas used for the calculation of risks. CONCLUSION: Future efforts to design predictive models for the genomics of common complex diseases may benefit from understanding the strengths and limitations of the predictive algorithms designed by these early companies.
Authors: Laura A Hecker; Albert O Edwards; Euijung Ryu; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Keith H Baratz; William L Brown; Peter Charbel Issa; Hendrik P Scholl; Beatrix Pollok-Kopp; Katharina E Schmid-Kubista; Kent R Bailey; Martin Oppermann Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Raluca Mihaescu; Mandy van Hoek; Eric J G Sijbrands; André G Uitterlinden; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Albert Hofman; Cornelia M van Duijn; A Cecile J W Janssens Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Ying Shan; Gerard Tromp; Helena Kuivaniemi; Diane T Smelser; Shefali S Verma; Marylyn D Ritchie; James R Elmore; David J Carey; Yvette P Conley; Michael B Gorin; Daniel E Weeks Journal: Genet Epidemiol Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 2.135
Authors: Diane R Koeller; Wendy R Uhlmann; Deanna Alexis Carere; Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Lars G Fritsche; Robert N Fariss; Dwight Stambolian; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Christine A Curcio; Anand Swaroop Journal: Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 8.929
Authors: Roxana Daneshjou; Zachary Zappala; Kim Kukurba; Sean M Boyle; Kelly E Ormond; Teri E Klein; Michael Snyder; Carlos D Bustamante; Russ B Altman; Stephen B Montgomery Journal: Pac Symp Biocomput Date: 2014
Authors: Julian Little; Brenda Wilson; Ron Carter; Kate Walker; Pasqualina Santaguida; Eva Tomiak; Joseph Beyene; Muhammad Usman Ali; Parminder Raina Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 8.822