My Identical Twin Sequenced our Genome
With rapidly declining costs, whole genome sequencing is becoming feasible for widespread use. Although cost-effectiveness is driving increased use of the technology, comprehensive recommendations on how to handle ethical dilemmas have yet to reach a consensus. In this article, Sam shares her experience of undergoing whole genome sequencing. Despite the deeply private nature of the test, the results do not solely belong to Sam; her identical twin sister, Arielle, shares virtually the same genome and received results without a formal consent process. This article explores their parallel experiences as a way of highlighting the controversial ethics of a private test with familial implications.
KeywordsWhole genome sequencing Identical twins Genetic testing Privacy Informed consent Bioethics
The authors thank Medullan for their generous trainee sponsorship and Ms. Tammy Kammin, Ms. Susan Price, Mr. Adam Nitenson, Ms. Erica Ramos, Dr. Robert Green, and Dr. Robert Morell for their input. This work was supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowships DGE1144152 (SLPS) and DGE0228243 (ASN). Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Samantha L.P. Schilit and Arielle Schilit Nitenson declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human Studies and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
- Ayuso, C., Millan, J. M., Mancheno, M., & Dal-Re, R. (2013). Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21(10), 1054–1059. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.297.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-223, 122 Stat. 881, codified as amended in scattered sections of 26, 29, and 42 U.S.C. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ233/html/PLAW-110publ233.htm. Accessed date May 6, 2016.
- Jackson, M. (2015). Veritas genetics breaks $1,000 whole genome barrier [press release]Google Scholar
- Jamal, S. M., Yu, J. H., Chong, J. X., Dent, K. M., Conta, J. H., Tabor, H. K., & Bamshad, M. J. (2013). Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 161A(5), 935–950. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35942.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morell, R. J., Brewer, C. C., Ge, D., Snieder, H., Zalewski, C. K., King, K. A., Drayna, D., et al. (2007). A twin study of auditory processing indicates that dichotic listening ability is a strongly heritable trait. Human Genetics, 122(1), 103–111. doi: 10.1007/s00439-007-0384-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sanderson, S. C., Linderman, M. D., Suckiel, S. A., Diaz, G. A., Zinberg, R. E., Ferryman, K., Wasserstein, M., et al. (2016). Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: baseline findings from the HealthSeq project. European Journal of Human Genetics, 24(1), 153. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wolf, S. M., Branum, R., Koenig, B. A., Petersen, G. M., Berry, S. A., Beskow, L. M., Daly, M. B., et al. (2015). Returning a research Participant's genomic results to relatives: analysis and recommendations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(3), 440–463. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12288.Google Scholar