In 2007, when the first genome-wide association studies (GWAS) got underway, researchers began to realize just how poorly they had previously been able to predict which genes might be related to certain diseases.
Part of the problem may be that, until now, the right tools haven’t been available to exploit GWAS data. But a few recent studies—including two out of Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center—have used GWAS data to identify therapeutically promising targets, and then manipulated those targets using the growing arsenal of gene editing methods.
Snippets of tissue, vials of blood and tubes of DNA from hundreds of thousands of people sit in freezers and liquid nitrogen tanks right now in laboratories across the globe. They come from people like you and me, donated in the hope that our genes researchers will be able to glean insights for the next breakthroughs for diseases common and rare.
Whenever we sign a consent form and roll up our sleeve, we don’t just join the community of research. We also become part of a debate that has been raging among researchers, clinicians and ethicists for years: What if our DNA sequence turns up bad news unrelated to the research we signed up for?
This responsibility can quickly turn into a numbers problem – a massive administrative burden. Consider that there are more than 104,000 human genetic variations now cited in the medical literature with links to human disease. …
While it’s not yet clear what this means for patients with either disease, the findings help untangle some very perplexing data about human genetics and diabetes risk, and could change doctors’ thinking about the treatment of both conditions down the road.
Scientists have long known that cancerous and healthy cells don’t use sugar in the same ways. …