$999 For a Complete DNA Scan, Worth it? 451
DoroSurfer writes "ZDNet is reporting that 23andme.com will open its doors on Monday, allowing you to send them a cheek swab and have your DNA analyzed for $999 (plus shipping, of course... ;)). So what's a thousand bucks buy you? They can tell you your ancient ancestry, They can tell you what diseases you're predisposed to, They give you a "Gene Explorer" that allows you to do a search in your genome to find out if you have a certain gene (e.g., you just heard on the news that Gene XYZ has been linked to Alzheimer's Disease)."
Somewhat dupey... (Score:4, Informative)
I'd love to hear about the results, though.
Gene Sequencing Options (Score:5, Informative)
Very much worth it if one is interested in learning about and working to minimize one's genetic risks.
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
NOT a Complete DNA Scan (Score:5, Informative)
There are some cool DNA projects out there already (Score:5, Informative)
The team behind the project has already collected thousands of samples from people worldwide who have interesting lineages (Indiginous people in xyz area) and found out some REALLY cool stuff.
The $1k thing seems like a privacy nightmare though.
Re:Gattaca, anyone? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:No. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gattaca, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
And yes, I said famous. I have a quotes encyclopedia (Yale Book of Quotations?) that even lists it.
Re:Gattaca, anyone? (Score:1, Informative)
n., pl. -nies.
1.
1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit1.
2.
1. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
2. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
It would be ironic if Neitzche was immortal, or that his statement implied he was immortal. As it is, there is no incongruity between Nietzche's death and the existance of god. If you think it's ironic, then you're willfully misinterpreting the statement.
Willfully misinterpreting a statement is common in jokes, but the gravity of these statements suggest that the misinterpretation (that Nietzche's death undermines his statement) is actually taken seriously. Thus I'm calling him out.
Of course, you guys seem to base your arguments on things like spelling, so I'll threw you a bone: I didn't correct my accidental misspelling of 'existence' in the previous paragraph, so you can now all talk about how my argument is incorrect and go on reveling about in your idiocy.
Re:Recommended viewing (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Beware early adopters (Score:1, Informative)
Mr. Jones,
We've gotten back all of your test results, and I'm afraid the news isn't good. To put it bluntly, she wants you to do something about the lenght of your mem ber. Please click the link below to visit our affiliated pharmacy site....
Re:No. (Score:3, Informative)
1: There's only about 20k-25k protein-coding genes (ORFs - open reading frames) in the genome.
2: There's a lot more going on in our cells than we know about. About a third of the mRNA transcripts in a cell can't be adequately explained by our current understanding of transcription.
3: Of the genetic diseases we know of, they can all (AFAIK) be explained by polymorphisms in the ORFs, or their associated regulatory elements. In other words, point #2 may not be as big of a deal as you'd think.
4: Sequencing your entire genome is entirely impractical. First, because a complete transcript is nearly impossible (centromeres and telomeres especially, but SINE and LINE elements as well); and Second, because our current tools wouldn't be able to pick out the unexplainable transcripts anyway. Then there's the matter of cost...
5: Due to the fact that they're targeting SNPs, I'm assuming that they're using a variation of Affymetrix or Nimblegen's microarray technology. SNPs alone won't explain some genetic conditions like Angelman and Prader Willi syndromes, which are due to genomic imprinting rather than coding sequences. (Same mutation, totally different phenotype - the difference is which parent passes the gene on to you). Diseases arising due to methylation or histone modification won't necessarily be detected in a SNP analysis.
In short, depending on how the SNPs were selected, the 550k may not be as limited as it sounds, and it's a big improvement over other available options. Having the sequence in its entirety may not have any real advantage over just checking the 550k SNPs. As far as privacy concerns go, proceed with caution.
No it can't (Score:3, Informative)
It's likely that this will change in the future; sooner or later it's likely that somebody will figure out how to slow down or stop the damage to the brain characteristic of Alzheimer's, and if that was the case it'd definitely be worth knowing that you were on course to develop it. But that's not the current situation.
Ownership of company (Score:3, Informative)