Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 770–781 | Cite as

“Bridge to the Literature”? Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools and the Views of Tool Developers

  • Sarah C. Nelson
  • Stephanie M. Fullerton
Original Research

Abstract

Patients and health care consumers can obtain access to their “raw,” or uninterpreted, genetic data from direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, researchers, or providers and pursue self-directed analysis via third-party interpretation tools. Yet relatively little is known about the nature of currently available interpretation tools or the motivations of tool developers. We conducted a structured content analysis of 23 third-party interpretation tool websites and supporting information, tracking features such as types of information returned, modes of generating and presenting that information, and privacy and security measures. We additionally conducted qualitative interviews with a subset of 10 tool developers. A majority of tools (16 of 23, or 70%) offer some type of health or wellness-related information, often extracted from publicly available variant annotation databases. Half of those interviewed characterized their activities as “bridging” users to the scientific literature rather than interpretation, for which they gave a variety of scientific, ethical, and regulatory justifications. The scale, heterogeneity, and complexity of information available from third-party interpretation are unprecedented. While developers aim to enlighten and empower tool users, interpretation-free “bridging” to rapidly evolving databases may instead impose burdens on genetic counselors and other health care providers asked to provide further contextualization and explanation.

Keywords

Third-party interpretation Direct-to-consumer genomic testing Variant interpretation Personal genomic testing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the interview participants as well as the organizers and attendees of the 2017 “Genomics and Society: Expanding the ELSI Universe” Congress, where an earlier version of this work was presented. We are also grateful to Deborah J. Bowen and Barbara J. Evans for early input on the study design and scope. This work was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium, U01HG006507 and U01HG007307 (Jarvik, PI). This work was conducted as part of Sarah C. Nelson’s doctoral dissertation in Public Health Genetics at the University of Washington.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Sarah C. Nelson and Stephanie M. Fullerton declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. This study was approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board as minimal risk human subjects research (approval #50238). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Animal Studies

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Supplementary material

10897_2018_217_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
Online Resource 1 (DOCX 32 kb)
10897_2018_217_MOESM2_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Online Resource 2 (DOCX 27 kb)

References

  1. Allen, C., Gabriel, J., Flynn, M., Cunningham, T. N., Flynn, M., & Wang, C. (2017). The impact of raw DNA availability and corresponding online interpretation services: a mixed methods study. Translational Behavioral Medicine, in press.Google Scholar
  2. Aufrichtig, R., & Yuan, J. (2016). DNA.Land’s trait prediction report. Medium (Weblog). Retrieved from https://medium.com/@dl1dl1/dna-lands-trait-prediction-report-8efbd3a74f98.
  3. Autosomal DNA tools. (n.d.). Retrieved Aug 12, 2017, from https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_tools.
  4. Badalato, L., Kalokairinou, L., & Borry, P. (2017). Third party interpretation of raw genetic data: an ethical exploration. European Journal of Human Genetics, 25, 1189–1194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bettinger, B. (2013). What else can I do with my DNA test results? Retrieved Nov 10, 2014, from http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2013/09/22/what-else-can-i-do-with-my-dna-test-results/.
  6. Bloss, C. S., Wineinger, N. E., Darst, B. F., Schork, N. J., & Topol, E. J. (2013). Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. Journal of Medical Genetics, 50(6), 393–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobe, J. (n.d.). Sharing genome studies. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://blog.jasonbobe.net/sharing-genome-studies/.
  8. Borry, P., Bentzen, H. B., Budin-Ljøsne, I., Cornel, M. C., Howard, H. C., Feeney, O., … Felzmann, H. (2017). The challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper. Journal of Community Genetics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-017-0331-7.
  9. Brett, G. R., Metcalfe, S. A., Amor, D. J., & Halliday, J. L. (2012). An exploration of genetic health professionals’ experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice. European Journal of Human Genetics, 20(8), 825–830.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. DNA Testing Reviews. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2017, from https://dnatestingchoice.com/.
  11. Elhaik, E., Tatarinova, T., Chebotarev, D., Piras, I. S., Maria Calò, C., De Montis, A., … Ziegle, J. S. (2014). Geographic population structure analysis of worldwide human populations infers their biogeographical origins. Nature Communications, 5, 3513.Google Scholar
  12. Erlich, Y., Gordon, A., Pearson, N., Shee, K., & Pickrell, J. (2015). DNA.Land: a community-wide platform to collect millions of genomes-phenomes. Baltimore: Presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of The American Society of Human Genetics.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, B. J. (2014). The first amendment right to speak about the human genome. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 16(3), 549–636.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, B. J., Dorschner, M. O., Burke, W., & Jarvik, G. P. (2014). Regulatory changes raise troubling questions for genomic testing. Genetics in Medicine, 16(11), 799–803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. (n.d.). Regulatory & ethics toolkit. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://www.ga4gh.org/ga4ghtoolkit/regulatoryandethics.
  16. Greshake, B., Bayer, P. E., Rausch, H., & Reda, J. (2014). openSNP-A crowdsourced web resource for personal genomics. PLoS One, 9(3), e89204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Karczewski, K. J., Tirrell, R. P., Cordero, P., Tatonetti, N. P., Dudley, J. T., Salari, K., … Kim, S. K. (2012). Interpretome: a freely available, modular, and secure personal genome interpretation engine. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 339–350.Google Scholar
  18. Kaufman, D. J., Bollinger, J. M., Dvoskin, R. L., & Scott, J. A. (2012). Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 413–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirkpatrick, B. E., & Rashkin, M. D. (2017). Ancestry testing and the practice of genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26(1), 6–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Landrum, M. J., Lee, J. M., Benson, M., Brown, G., Chao, C., Chitipiralla, S., et al. (2016). ClinVar: public archive of interpretations of clinically relevant variants. Nucleic Acids Research, 44(D1), D862–D868.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. LiveWello. (n.d.). Genetics tools. Retrieved Jan 6, 2018, from https://livewello.com/genetics.
  22. Lucivero, F., & Prainsack, B. (2015). The lifestylisation of healthcare? “Consumer genomics” and mobile health as technologies for healthy lifestyle. Applied and Translational Genomics, 4, 44–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lunshof, J., Church, G., & Prainsack, B. (2014). Raw personal data: providing access. Science, 343(6169), 373–374.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McGowan, M. L., Fishman, J. R., Settersten, R. A., Lambrix, M. A., & Juengst, E. T. (2014). Gatekeepers or intermediaries? The role of clinicians in commercial genomic testing. PLoS One, 9(9), e108484.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy, S. (2009). In need of a reality check. Nature Biotechnology, 27(5), 422–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson, S. (2016). Geneticists should offer data to participants. Nature, 539(7627), 7–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Open Humans. (n.d.). Retrieved Aug 12, 2017, from www.openhumans.org.
  28. Powell, K. P., Christianson, C. A., Cogswell, W. A., Dave, G., Verma, A., Eubanks, S., & Henrich, V. C. (2012a). Educational needs of primary care physicians regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 469–478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Powell, K. P., Cogswell, W. A., Christianson, C. A., Dave, G., Verma, A., Eubanks, S., & Henrich, V. C. (2012b). Primary care physicians’ awareness, experience and opinions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(1), 113–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sherry, S. T., Ward, M.-H., Kholodov, M., Baker, J., Phan, L., Smigielski, E. M., & Sirotkin, K. (2001). dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Research, 29(1), 308–311.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Spector-Bagdady, K., & Pike, E. (2014). Consuming genomics: regulating direct-to-consumer genetic and genomic information. Nebraska Law Review, 92(4), 677–745.Google Scholar
  32. Sterling, R. (2008). The on-line promotion and sale of nutrigenomic services. Genetics in Medicine, 10(11), 784–796.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. The Precision Medicine Initiative NIH. (2017). Return of genetic results in the All of Us Research Program. Retrieved Aug 27, 2017, from https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research-training/initiatives/pmi/return-of-results-agenda-0306-0717.pdf
  34. U.S. DHHS. (2016). Individuals’ right under HIPAA to access their health information 45 CFR § 164.524. Retrieved Sept 21, 2017, from http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/access/index.html.
  35. van der Wouden, C. H., Carere, D. A., Maitland-van der Zee, A. H., Ruffin, M. T., Roberts, J. S., & Green, R. C. (2016). Consumer perceptions of interactions with primary care providers after direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164(8), 513–522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner, J. K., Cooper, J. D., Sterling, R., & Royal, C. D. (2012). Tilting at windmills no longer: a data-driven discussion of DTC DNA ancestry tests. Genetics in Medicine, 14(6), 586–593.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang, C., Cahill, T. J., Parlato, A., Wertz, B., Zhong, Q., Cunningham, T. N., & Cummings, J. J. (2017). Consumer use and response to online third-party raw DNA interpretation services. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.340.
  38. Welter, D., MacArthur, J., Morales, J., Burdett, T., Hall, P., Junkins, H., et al. (2014). The NHGRI GWAS Catalog, a curated resource of SNP-trait associations. Nucleic Acids Research, 42(Database issue), D1001–D1006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Public Health GeneticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Bioethics & HumanitiesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations