“Bridge to the Literature”? Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools and the Views of Tool Developers
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.
KeywordsThird-party interpretation Direct-to-consumer genomic testing Variant interpretation Personal genomic testing
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.
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
- 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
- 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.
- Autosomal DNA tools. (n.d.). Retrieved Aug 12, 2017, from https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_tools.
- 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/.
- Bobe, J. (n.d.). Sharing genome studies. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://blog.jasonbobe.net/sharing-genome-studies/.
- 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.
- DNA Testing Reviews. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2017, from https://dnatestingchoice.com/.
- 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
- 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
- Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. (n.d.). Regulatory & ethics toolkit. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://www.ga4gh.org/ga4ghtoolkit/regulatoryandethics.
- 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
- LiveWello. (n.d.). Genetics tools. Retrieved Jan 6, 2018, from https://livewello.com/genetics.
- Open Humans. (n.d.). Retrieved Aug 12, 2017, from www.openhumans.org.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.