Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Molecular Genetics and Personalized Medicine pp 215–236Cite as

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

Molecular Genetics and Personalized Medicine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Molecular and Translational Medicine ((MOLEMED))

Abstract

Medical tests that are both marketed and sold directly to the public, without the supervision of a health-care professional, are not new. Until recently the market consisted primarily of self-test kits for various blood or urine analytes, many of which are available direct-to-consumer (DTC) over-the-counter at pharmacies or via the Internet. Most notable among these are glucose monitors, which form an integral part of diabetes management, home pregnancy testing kits, and blood cholesterol tests. These kits combine a simple assay device with rudimentary interpretation, whereby the results of the test are displayed on the device itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Human Genetics Commission. Common framework of principles for direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Edelman E, Eng C. A practical guide to interpretation and clinical application of personal genomic screening. BMJ. 2009;339:b4253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Harmon A. Gene Map becomes a luxury item. New York Times. 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/health/research/04geno.html. Accessed 6 Aug 2011.

  4. Metzker ML. Sequencing technologies – the next generation. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11(1):31–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gibson G, Copenhaver GP. Consent and internet-enabled human genomics. PLoS Genet. 2010;6(6):e1000965.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Knoppers BM. Consent to ‘personal’ genomics and privacy. EMBO Rep. 2010;11(6):416–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Eng C, Sharp RR. Bioethical and clinical dilemmas of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: the problem of misattributed equivalence. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(17):17cm5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. American College of Medical Genetics. ACMG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing. 2008. http://www.acmg.net/StaticContent/StaticPages/DTC_Statement.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2011.

  9. MacArthur D, Wright CF. Don’t stand in the way of genomes for all. New Sci. 2010;2774:59.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Haddow JE, Palomaki GE, Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W. ACCE: a model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests. In: Human genome epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, New York; 2004. p. 217–33.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kroese M, Zimmern RL, Farndon P, Stewart F, Whittaker J. How can genetic tests be evaluated for clinical use? Experience of the UK Genetic Testing Network. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007;15(9):917–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Teutsh SM, Bradley L, Palomaki G, et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP working group. Genet Med. 2009;11(1):3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wright CF, Kroese M. Evaluation of genetic tests for susceptibility to common complex diseases: why, when and how? Hum Genet. 2010;127(2):125–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 23andme Community. Update from 23andMe. https://www.23andme.com/you/community/thread/3621/ . Accessed 4 June 2010.

  15. Aldhous P. My ‘non-human’ DNA: a cautionary tale. New Scientist. 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17683-my-nonhuman-dna-a-cautionary-tale.html. Accessed 6 Aug 2011.

  16. Vorhaus D. Why 23andMe’s sample swap is actually an argument in favor of DTC genetic testing. Genomics Law Report. 2010. http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/06/09/23andme-sample-swap. Accessed 6 Aug 2011.

  17. Pepe MS, Feng Z, Huang Y, et al. Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(3):362–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W, Newcomb P. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(9):882–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chanock SJ. NCI-NHGRI Working Group on Replication in Association Studies. Replicating genotype-phenotype associations. Nature. 2007;447(7145):655–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, et al. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(2):e22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McCarthy MI, Abecasis GR, Cardon LR, et al. Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(5):356–69.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Janssens ACJW, Gwinn M, Bradley L, Oostra BA, van Duijn CM, Khoury MJ. A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions. Am J Med Genet. 2008;82:593–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ng PC, Murray SS, Levy S, Venter JC. An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature. 2009;461(7265):724–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Swan M. Multigenic condition risk assessment in direct-to-consumer genomic services. Genet Med. 2010;12(5):279–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mihaescu R, van Hoek M, Sijbrands EJG, et al. Evaluation of risk prediction updates from commercial genome-wide scans. Genet Med. 2009;11(8):588–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Personalized Medicine Coalition. Personal genomics and industry standards: scientific validity. 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yang Q, Flanders WD, Moonesinghe R, Ioannidis JPA, Guessous I, Khoury MJ. Using lifetime risk estimates in personal genomic profiles: estimation of uncertainty. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;85(6):786–800.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Morgan AA, Chen R, Butte AJ. Likelihood ratios for genome medicine. Genome Med. 2010;2(30). doi:10.1186/gm1151.

  29. Wray NR, Yang J, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. The genetic interpretation of area under the ROC curve in genomic profiling. PLoS Genet. 2010;6(2):e1000864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Maher B. The case of the missing heritability. Nature. 2008;456:18–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Janssens ACJW, van Duijn CM. Genome-based prediction of common diseases: advances and prospects. Hum Mol Genet. 2008;17(R2):R166–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Paynter NP, Chasman DI, Buring JE, Shiffman D, Cook NR, Ridker PM. Cardiovascular disease risk prediction with and without knowledge of genetic variation at chromosome 9p21.3. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(2):65–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JPA. Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score. JAMA. 2009;302(21):2345–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Talmud PJ, Hingorani AD, Cooper JA, et al. Utility of genetic and non-genetic risk factors in prediction of type 2 diabetes: Whitehall II prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2010;340(jan14_1):b4838.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Maller J, George S, Purcell S, et al. Common variation in three genes, including a noncoding variant in CFH, strongly influences risk of age-related macular degeneration. Nat Genet. 2006;38(9):1055–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gail MH. Value of adding single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes to a breast cancer risk model. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(13):959–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Li-Wan-Po A, Farndon P, Lithgow J. When is a genetic test suitable for prime time? Predicting the risk of prostate cancer as a case-example. Public Health Genomics. 2010;12:55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zheng SL, Sun J, Wiklund F, et al. Cumulative association of five genetic variants with prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(9):910–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Jakobsdottir J, Gorin MB, Conley YP, Ferrell RE, Weeks DE. Interpretation of genetic association studies: markers with replicated highly significant odds ratios may be poor classifiers. PLoS Genet. 2009;5(2):e1000337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pharoah PDP, Antoniou AC, Easton DF, Ponder BAJ. Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(26):2796–803.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Foster MW, Mulvihill JJ, Sharp RR. Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genet Med. 2009;11(8):570–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Researchers shed light on implications and impact of using direct-to-consumer and clinical genetic testing in disease risk assessment. Press release: American Society of Human Genetics. 20 October 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(6):524–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Green RC, Roberts JS, Cupples LA, et al. Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(3):245–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. McBride CM, Bowen D, Brody LC, et al. Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(5):556–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. UK. Human Tissue Act. 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Borry P, Evers-Kiebooms G, Cornel MC, Clarke A, Dierickx K. Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors: background considerations towards ESHG recommendations. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009;17(6):711–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Borry P, Stultiens L, Nys H, Cassiman JJ, Dierickx K. Presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in minors: a systematic review of guidelines and position papers. Clin Genet. 2006;70(5):374–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Mountain J. 23andKids: growing up genotyped. The spittoon. 2008. http://spittoon.23andme.com/2008/10/28/23andkids-growing-up-genotyped/ . Accessed 6 Aug 2011.

  50. United States of America. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Public Law. 2008:110–233.

    Google Scholar 

  51. O’Neill M. Genetic information, life insurance and social justice. Monist. 2006;89(4):567–92.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(5):406–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ameer B, Krivoy N. Direct-to-consumer/patient advertising of genetic testing: a position statement of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology. J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;49(8):886–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gurwitz D, Bregman-Eschet Y. Personal genomics services: whose genomes? Eur J Hum Genet. 2009;17:883–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Human Genetics Commission. More Genes Direct. 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hogarth S, Javitt G, Melzer D. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2008;9:161–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Hudson K, Javitt G, Burke W, Byers P, ASIC. ASHG statement* on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(6):1392–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Patch C, Sequeiros J, Cornel MC. Genetic horoscopes: is it all in the genes? Points for regulatory control of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009;17:857–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Council of Europe. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning. Genetic Testing for Health Purposes (27.XI.2008). 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kaye J. The regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Hum Mol Genet. 2008;17(Review Issue 2):R180–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Bundesrat. Draft Human Genetic Examination Act (Genetic Diagnosis Act – GenDG). 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  62. FDA. FDA news release: FDA to host public meeting on oversight of laboratory-developed tests. 16 June 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Green MJ, Botkin JR. “Genetic exceptionalism” in medicine: clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic tests. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(7):571–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wright CF, Hall A, Zimmern RL. Regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests: what is all the fuss about? Genetics in Medicine. 2010. Publish ahead of print:10.1097/GIM.1090b1013e3181f1069dd1092.

  65. Javitt G, Katsanis SH, Scott J, Hudson K. Developing the blueprint for a genetic testing registry. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(2):95–105. doi:10.1159/000226593.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. NIH. Announces Genetic Testing Registry. 2010. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2010/od-18.htm. Accessed 6 Aug 2011.

  67. OECD. Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Molecular Genetic Testing. 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kraft P, Hunter DJ. Genetic risk prediction – are we there yet? N Engl J Med. 2009;360(17):1701–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Singleton AB, Hardy J, Traynor BJ, Houlden H. Towards a complete resolution of the genetic architecture of disease. Trends Genet. 2010;26(10):438–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Ng PC, Levy S, Huang J, et al. Genetic variation in an individual human exome. PLoS Genet. 2008;4(8):e1000160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. MacArthur DG, Tyler-Smith C. Loss-of-function variants in the genomes of healthy humans. Hum Mol Genet. 2010;19(R2):R125–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Wright CF, Gregory-Jones S. Size of the direct-to-consumer genomic testing market. Genet Med. 2010;12(9):594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Eriksson N, Macpherson JM, Tung JY, et al. Web-based, participant-driven studies yield novel genetic associations for common traits. PLoS Genet. 2010;6(6):e1000993.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Stein L. The case for cloud computing in genome informatics. Genome Biol. 2010;11(5):207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SA, UK

    Caroline F. Wright Ph.D. & Daniel G. MacArthur Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Caroline F. Wright Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel G. MacArthur Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline F. Wright Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, 84108, Utah, USA

    D. Hunter Best

  2. , Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, 84108, Utah, USA

    Jeffrey J. Swensen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wright, C.F., MacArthur, D.G. (2012). Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing. In: Best, D., Swensen, J. (eds) Molecular Genetics and Personalized Medicine. Molecular and Translational Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-530-5_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-530-5_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-61779-529-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-61779-530-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation