IGG in the trenches: Results of an in-depth interview study on the practice, politics, and future of investigative genetic genealogy.

Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects and unidentified deceased and living persons that has sparked controversy. In a criminal case, the technique involves uploading genetic information left by a putative perpetrator at the crime scene to one or more direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy databases with the intention of identifying the perpetrator's genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the perpetrator on the family tree. In 2018, IGG helped to identify the Golden State Killer, and it has since been used in hundreds of investigations in the United States. Here, we report findings from in-depth interviews with 24 U.S.-based individuals involved in IGG that are relevant to the technique's current practice and predicted future. Key findings include: an emphasis on restricting IGG as a conceptual and technical matter to lead generation; the rapid growth of a private and largely self-regulating industry to support IGG; general recognition of three categories of cases associated with distinct practical, ethical, and policy questions, as well as varying degrees of controversy; and the significant influence of perceived public opinion on IGG practice. The experiences and perspectives of individuals in the IGG trenches related to these and other issues are potentially useful inputs to ongoing efforts to regulate the technique.

Returning personal genetic information on susceptibility to arsenic toxicity to research participants in Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: There is growing consensus that researchers should offer to return genetic results to participants, but returning results in lower-resource countries has received little attention. In this study, we return results on genetic susceptibility to arsenic toxicity to participants in a Bangladeshi cohort exposed to arsenic through naturally-contaminated drinking water. We examine the impact on behavioral changes related to exposure reduction. METHODS: We enrolled participants from the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study who had (1) high arsenic (≥150 µg/g creatinine) in a recent urine sample and (2) existing data on genetic variants impacting arsenic metabolism efficiency (AS3MT and FTCD). We used genetic data to recruit three study groups, each with n = 103: (1) efficient metabolizers (low-risk), (2) inefficient metabolizers (high-risk), and (3) a randomly-selected control group (NCT05072132). At baseline, all participants received information on the effects of arsenic and how to reduce exposure by switching to a low arsenic well. The two intervention groups also received their arsenic metabolism efficiency status (based on their genetic results). Changes in behavior and arsenic exposure were assessed using questionnaires and urine arsenic measures after six months. RESULTS: Clear decreases in urine arsenic after six months were observed for all three groups. The inefficient group self-reported higher levels of attempted switching to lower arsenic wells than the other groups; however, there was no detectable difference in urine arsenic reduction among the three groups. Participants showed strong interest in receiving genetic results and found them useful. The inefficient group experienced higher levels of anxiety than the other groups. Among the efficient group, that receiving genetic results did not appear to hinder behavioral change. CONCLUSION: Returning genetic results increased self-reported exposure-reducing behaviors but did not have a detectable impact on reducing urine arsenic over and above a one-on-one educational intervention.

[DNA everywhere]. / Notre ADN est partout !

Advanced analysis of environmental DNA for diversity monitoring using deep sequencing reveals the presence of human DNA in many samples connected to human activity.Moreover, this DNA is in relatively good condition and can be used for genetic survey of populations and even individuals. This opens many interesting scientific opportunities but also raises serious privacy issues.

The Genetic Information Privacy Act: Drawbacks and Limitations.

This Viewpoint discusses proposed and enacted state legislation to protect genetic privacy for those participating in direct-to-consumer genetic testing and ensuring genetic antidiscrimination for life, health, long-term care, and disability insurance.

DisVar: an R library for identifying variants associated with diseases using large-scale personal genetic information.

Background: Genetic variants may potentially play a contributing factor in the development of diseases. Several genetic disease databases are used in medical research and diagnosis but the web applications used to search these databases for disease-associated variants have limitations. The application may not be able to search for large-scale genetic variants, the results of searches may be difficult to interpret and variants mapped from the latest reference genome (GRCH38/hg38) may not be supported. Methods: In this study, we developed a novel R library called "DisVar" to identify disease-associated genetic variants in large-scale individual genomic data. This R library is compatible with variants from the latest reference genome version. DisVar uses five databases of disease-associated variants. Over 100 million variants can be simultaneously searched for specific associated diseases. Results: The package was evaluated using 24 Variant Call Format (VCF) files (215,054 to 11,346,899 sites) from the 1000 Genomes Project. Disease-associated variants were detected in 298,227 hits across all the VCF files, taking a total of 63.58 m to complete. The package was also tested on ClinVar's VCF file (2,120,558 variants), where 20,657 hits associated with diseases were identified with an estimated elapsed time of 45.98 s. Conclusions: DisVar can overcome the limitations of existing tools and is a fast and effective diagnostic and preventive tool that identifies disease-associated variations from large-scale genetic variants against the latest reference genome.

The reuse of genetic information in research and informed consent.

Important advances in genetics research have been made in recent years. Such advances have facilitated the availability of huge amounts of genetic information that could potentially be reused beyond the original purpose for which such information was obtained. Any such reuse must meet certain ethical criteria to ensure that the dignity, integrity, and autonomy of the individual from whom that information was obtained are protected. The aim of this paper is to reflect on these criteria through a critical analysis of the literature. To guarantee these values, ethical criteria need to be established in several respects. For instance, the question must be posed whether the information requires special attention and protection (so-called genetic exceptionalism). Another aspect to bear in mind is the most appropriate type of consent to be given by the person involved, on the one hand favouring research and the reuse of genetic information while on the other protecting the autonomy of that person. Finally, there is a need to determine what protection such reuse should have in order to avoid detrimental consequences and protect the rights of the individual. The main conclusions are that genetic information requires special care and protection (genetic exceptionalism) and that broad consent is the most practical and trustworthy type of consent for the reuse of genetic information.

Connecting the dots: Carrier screening and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To highlight the possibility of genetic discrimination in the United States with respect to carrier screening under limitations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and to encourage providers to educate patients about this possibility during pretest counseling. METHODS: Review of current professional guidelines and practice resources regarding the necessary components of pretest counseling for carrier screening in the context of GINA's limitations and the potential impact of carrier screening results on life, long-term care and disability insurance. RESULTS: Current practice resources advise that patients in the United States should be informed that their employer or health insurance company generally cannot use their genetic information during the underwriting process. However, these resources do not elaborate on GINA's limitations or explain why there may be adverse consequences to patients regarding these limitations. Studies have demonstrated significant gaps in provider knowledge of GINA, especially for those without formal genetic training. CONCLUSION: Enhanced education and provision of GINA educational resources for providers and patients will help ensure that patients have the opportunity to prioritize their insurance needs prior to undergoing carrier screening.

Exploring the challenges of and solutions to sharing personal genomic data for use in healthcare.

Boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the tightened General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation within the European Union (EU), individuals have become increasingly concerned about privacy. This is also reflected in how willing individuals are to consent to sharing personal data, including their health data. To understand this behaviour better, this study focuses on willingness to consent in relation to genomic data. The study explores how the provision of educational information relates to willingness to consent, as well as differences in privacy concerns, information sensitivity and the perceived trade-off value between individuals willing versus unwilling to consent to sharing their genomic data. Of the respondents, 65% were initially willing to consent, but after educational information 89% were willing to consent and only 11% remained unwilling to consent. Educating individuals about potential health benefits can thus help to correct the beliefs that originally led to the unwillingness to share genomic data.

Relatives' Right to Know Genetic Information in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Once someone is diagnosed with a genetic abnormality or disorder, that information can be extremely valuable to their biological relatives. It may allow them to access preventive treatment or make informed decisions, such as whether to have a biological child or not. However, when the original family member refuses to disclose that information to at-risk relatives, a conflict arises between their right to patient confidentiality and their relatives' right to know. Aotearoa New Zealand lacks a specific, workable mechanism for disclosing genetic information to at-risk relatives. This article traverses the theoretical and practical issues involved in non-consensual disclosure of genetic information to suggest a new path for Aotearoa. It argues that the current, Western attitude of autonomy as an individual right free from obligations to others is no longer an appropriate justification for confidentiality over genetic information. Instead, patients diagnosed with a genetic abnormality or disorder should only be entitled to confidentiality where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy - determined by weighing the objective interests for and against disclosure. This approach recognises that we ought to consider our close relationships with others when we exercise autonomy over what is ultimately shared family information.

Privacy-aware estimation of relatedness in admixed populations.

BACKGROUND: Estimation of genetic relatedness, or kinship, is used occasionally for recreational purposes and in forensic applications. While numerous methods were developed to estimate kinship, they suffer from high computational requirements and often make an untenable assumption of homogeneous population ancestry of the samples. Moreover, genetic privacy is generally overlooked in the usage of kinship estimation methods. There can be ethical concerns about finding unknown familial relationships in third-party databases. Similar ethical concerns may arise while estimating and reporting sensitive population-level statistics such as inbreeding coefficients for the concerns around marginalization and stigmatization. RESULTS: Here, we present SIGFRIED, which makes use of existing reference panels with a projection-based approach that simplifies kinship estimation in the admixed populations. We use simulated and real datasets to demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of kinship estimation. We present a secure federated kinship estimation framework and implement a secure kinship estimator using homomorphic encryption-based primitives for computing relatedness between samples in two different sites while genotype data are kept confidential. Source code and documentation for our methods can be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7053352. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of relatedness is fundamentally important for identifying relatives, in association studies, and for estimation of population-level estimates of inbreeding. As the awareness of individual and group genomic privacy is growing, privacy-preserving methods for the estimation of relatedness are needed. Presented methods alleviate the ethical and privacy concerns in the analysis of relatedness in admixed, historically isolated and underrepresented populations. SHORT ABSTRACT: Genetic relatedness is a central quantity used for finding relatives in databases, correcting biases in genome wide association studies and for estimating population-level statistics. Methods for estimating genetic relatedness have high computational requirements, and occasionally do not consider individuals from admixed ancestries. Furthermore, the ethical concerns around using genetic data and calculating relatedness are not considered. We present a projection-based approach that can efficiently and accurately estimate kinship. We implement our method using encryption-based techniques that provide provable security guarantees to protect genetic data while kinship statistics are computed among multiple sites.

Video education about genetic privacy and patient perspectives about sharing prenatal genetic data: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Laboratories offering cell-free DNA often reserve the right to share prenatal genetic data for research or even commercial purposes, and obtain this permission on the patient consent form. Although it is known that nonpregnant patients are often reluctant to share their genetic data for research, pregnant patients' knowledge of, and opinions about, genetic data privacy are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether pregnant patients who had already undergone cell-free DNA screening were aware that genetic data derived from cell-free DNA may be shared for research. Furthermore, we examined whether pregnant patients exposed to video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act-a federal law that mandates workplace and health insurance protections against genetic discrimination-were more willing to share cell-free DNA-related genetic data for research than pregnant patients who were unexposed. STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04420858), English-speaking patients with singleton pregnancies who underwent cell-free DNA and subsequently presented at 17 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks of gestation for a detailed anatomy scan were randomized 1:1 to a control or intervention group. Both groups viewed an infographic about cell-free DNA. In addition, the intervention group viewed an educational video about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The primary outcomes were knowledge about, and willingness to share, prenatal genetic data from cell-free DNA by commercial laboratories for nonclinical purposes, such as research. The secondary outcomes included knowledge about existing genetic privacy laws, knowledge about the potential for reidentification of anonymized genetic data, and acceptability of various use and sharing scenarios for prenatal genetic data. Eighty-one participants per group were required for 80% power to detect an increase in willingness to share data from 60% to 80% (α=0.05). RESULTS: A total of 747 pregnant patients were screened, and 213 patients were deemed eligible and approached for potential study participation. Of these patients, 163 (76.5%) consented and were randomized; one participant discontinued the intervention, and two participants were excluded from analysis after the intervention when it was discovered that they did not fulfill all eligibility criteria. Overall, 160 (75.1%) of those approached were included in the final analysis. Most patients in the control group (72 [90.0%]) and intervention (76 [97.4%]) group were either unsure about or incorrectly thought that cell-free DNA companies could not share prenatal genetic data for research. Participants in the intervention group were more likely to incorrectly believe that their prenatal genetic data would not be shared for nonclinical purposes than participants in the control group (28.8% in the control group vs 46.2% in the intervention; P=.03). However, video education did not increase participant willingness to share genetic data in multiple scenarios. Non-White participants were less willing than White participants to allow sharing of genetic data specifically for academic research (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Most participants were unaware that their prenatal genetic data may be used for nonclinical purposes. Pregnant patients who were educated about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act were not more willing to share genetic data than those who did not receive this education. Surprisingly, video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act led patients to falsely believe that their data would not be shared for research, and participants who identified as racial minorities were less willing to share genetic data. New strategies are needed to improve pregnant patients' understanding of genetic privacy.

Anti-Selection is Only the Beginning.

This commentary proposes the need for greater normative debate about when, if ever, it is appropriate for insurers to access genetic information of insureds to combat anti-selection.

Functional genomics data: privacy risk assessment and technological mitigation.

The generation of functional genomics data by next-generation sequencing has increased greatly in the past decade. Broad sharing of these data is essential for research advancement but poses notable privacy challenges, some of which are analogous to those that occur when sharing genetic variant data. However, there are also unique privacy challenges that arise from cryptic information leakage during the processing and summarization of functional genomics data from raw reads to derived quantities, such as gene expression values. Here, we review these challenges and present potential solutions for mitigating privacy risks while allowing broad data dissemination and analysis.