Gene-Centric Database Reveals Environmental and Lifestyle Relationships for Potential Risk Modification and Prevention.

The database at Nutrigenetics.net has been under development since 2007 to facilitate the identification and classification of PubMed articles relevant to human genetics. A controlled vocabulary (i.e., standardized terminology) is used to index these records, with links back to PubMed for every article title. This enables the display of indexes (alphabetical subtopic listings) for any given topic, or for any given combination of topics, including for genes and specific genetic variants. Stepwise use of such indexes (first for one topic, then for combinations of topics) can reveal relationships that are otherwise easily overlooked. These relationships include environmental and lifestyle variables with potential relevance to risk modification (both beneficial and detrimental), and to prevention, or at least to the potential delay of symptom onset for health conditions like Alzheimer disease among many others. Thirty-four specific genetic variants have each been mentioned in at least ≥1,000 PubMed titles/abstracts, and these numbers are steadily increasing. The benefits of indexing with standardized terminology are illustrated for genetic variants like MTHFR 677C-T and its various synonyms (e.g., rs1801133 or Ala222Val). Such use of a controlled vocabulary is also helpful for numerous health conditions, and for potential risk modifiers (i.e., potential risk/effect modifiers).

Negotiating the boundary between medicine and consumer culture: online marketing of nutrigenetic tests.

Genomics researchers and policy makers have accused nutrigenetic testing companies--which provide DNA-based nutritional advice online--of misleading the public. The UK and USA regulation of the tests has hinged on whether they are classed as "medical" devices, and alternative regulatory categories for "lifestyle" and less-serious genetic tests have been proposed. This article presents the findings of a qualitative thematic analysis of the webpages of nine nutrigenetic testing companies. We argue that the companies, mirroring and negotiating the regulatory debates, were creating a new social space for products between medicine and consumer culture. This space was articulated through three themes: (i) how "genes" and tests were framed, (ii) how the individual was imagined vis a vis health information, and (iii) the advice and treatments offered. The themes mapped onto four frames or models for genetic testing: (i) clinical genetics, (ii) medicine, (iii) intermediate, and (iv) lifestyle. We suggest that the genomics researchers and policy makers appeared to perform what Gieryn (Gieryn, T.F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.) has termed "boundary work", i.e., to delegitimize the tests as outside proper medicine and science. Yet, they legitimated them, though in a different way, by defining them as lifestyle, and we contend that the transformation of the boundaries of science into a creation of such hybrid or compromise categories is symptomatic of current historical times. Social scientists studying medicine have referred to the emergence of "lifestyle" products. This article contributes to this literature by examining the historical, regulatory and marketing processes through which certain goods and services become defined this way.

The on-line promotion and sale of nutrigenomic services.

PURPOSE: Nutrigenomic researchers hope to improve health through personalized nutrition, but many consider the sale of nutrigenomic services to be premature. Few studies have evaluated the promotion and sales practices of organizations hosting nutrigenomic websites. METHODS: Systematic search and analysis of websites promoting nutrigenomic services in October 2006. RESULTS: Of the 64 organizations hosting websites, 29 organizations offered (24 of 29) or promoted (5 of 29) at-home testing and 26 organizations sold services on-line (17 of 26) or provided a direct link to on-line sales (9 of 26). A lack of transparency made it difficult to identify unique tests; however, three organizations were linked to 56% of all test mentions. Most organizations were healthcare/wellness service providers (50%) or laboratories/biotech companies (27%). Few organizations provided on-line information about laboratory certifications (20%), nutrigenomic test or research limitations (13%), test validity or utility (11%), or genetic counseling (9%). Affiliation opportunities were offered by 15 organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations did not provide adequate information about nutrigenomic services and at-home genetic testing. Affiliation opportunities and distribution agreements suggest the promotion and sale of nutrigenomic services will continue, increasing the importance of consumer and provider education. In absence of federal regulation, organizations promoting nutrigenomic services should equate websites to product labels and include information to facilitate informed decision-making.