Watch this video and consider whether you would be interested in knowing details about your own personal disease risk or susceptibility.
Predicting Disease Risk at the Individual Level
Predicting the risk of disease involves screening currently healthy individuals by genome analysis at the individual level. Intervention with lifestyle changes and drugs can be recommended before disease onset. However, this approach is most applicable when the problem resides within a single gene defect. Such defects only account for approximately 5 percent of diseases in developed countries. Most of the common diseases, such as heart disease, are multi-factored or polygenic, which is a phenotypic characteristic that involves two or more genes, and also involve environmental factors such as diet. In April 2010, scientists at Stanford University published the genome analysis of a healthy individual (Stephen Quake, a scientist at Stanford University, who had his genome sequenced); the analysis predicted his propensity to acquire various diseases. A risk assessment was performed to analyze Quake’s percentage of risk for 55 different medical conditions. A rare genetic mutation was found, which showed him to be at risk for sudden heart attack. He was also predicted to have a 23 percent risk of developing prostate cancer and a 1.4 percent risk of developing Alzheimer’s. The scientists used databases and several publications to analyze the genomic data. Even though genomic sequencing is becoming more affordable and analytical tools are becoming more reliable, ethical issues surrounding genomic analysis at a population level remain to be addressed.
Debate remains over what to do with individual level data as well, such as the data from the genomic analysis of Quake’s DNA. As a result of the study it was recommended that Quake start a regiment of preventative statins; the long-term effects of this study or treatment remain unknown at this stage.
For example, in 2011, the United States Preventative Services Task Force recommended against using the PSA test to screen healthy men for prostate cancer. Their recommendation is based on evidence that screening does not reduce the risk of death from prostate cancer. Prostate cancer often develops very slowly and does not cause problems, while the cancer treatment can have severe side effects. The PCA3 (Figure 1) test is considered to be more accurate, but screening may still result in men who would not have been harmed by the cancer itself suffering side effects from treatment.
What do you think? Should all healthy men be screened for prostate cancer using the PCA3 or PSA test? Should people in general be screened to find out if they have a genetic risk for cancer or other diseases?
There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. While it is true that prostate cancer treatment itself can be harmful, many men would rather be aware that they have cancer so they can monitor the disease and begin treatment if it progresses. And while genetic screening may be useful, it is expensive and may cause needless worry. People with certain risk factors may never develop the disease, and preventative treatments may do more harm than good.
Pharmacogenomics and Toxicogenomics
Pharmacogenomics, also called toxicogenomics, involves evaluating the effectiveness and safety of drugs on the basis of information from an individual’s genomic sequence. Genomic responses to drugs can be studied using experimental animals (such as laboratory rats or mice) or live cells in the laboratory before embarking on studies with humans. Studying changes in gene expression could provide information about the transcription profile in the presence of the drug, which can be used as an early indicator of the potential for toxic effects. For example, genes involved in cellular growth and controlled cell death, when disturbed, could lead to the growth of cancerous cells. Genome-wide studies can also help to find new genes involved in drug toxicity. Personal genome sequence information can be used to prescribe medications that will be most effective and least toxic on the basis of the individual patient’s genotype. The gene signatures may not be completely accurate, but can be tested further before pathologic symptoms arise.
Traditionally, microbiology has been taught with the view that microorganisms are best studied under pure culture conditions, which involves isolating a single type of cell and culturing it in the laboratory. Because microorganisms can go through several generations in a matter of hours, their gene expression profiles adapt to the new laboratory environment very quickly. In addition, the vast majority of bacterial species resist being cultured in isolation. Most microorganisms do not live as isolated entities, but in microbial communities known as biofilms. For all of these reasons, pure culture is not always the best way to study microorganisms. Metagenomics is the study of the collective genomes of multiple species that grow and interact in an environmental niche. Metagenomics can be used to identify new species more rapidly and to analyze the effect of pollutants on the environment (Figure 2).
A Multitude of Benefits
Knowledge of the genomics of microorganisms is being used to find better ways to harness biofuels from algae and cyanobacteria. The primary sources of fuel today are coal, oil, wood, and other plant products, such as ethanol. Although plants are renewable resources, there is still a need to find more alternative renewable sources of energy to meet our population’s energy demands. The microbial world is one of the largest resources for genes that encode new enzymes and produce new organic compounds, and it remains largely untapped. Microorganisms are used to create products, such as enzymes that are used in research, antibiotics, and other anti-microbial mechanisms. Microbial genomics is helping to develop diagnostic tools, improved vaccines, new disease treatments, and advanced environmental cleanup techniques.