|
Hapmaps Link Disease, Genes
Researchers focus on differences between groups to
find bad DNA
By David Ewing Duncan
DISCOVER Vol. 26 No. 10 | October 2005 | Biology & Medicine
More than 15 million elderly Americans slowly lose their eyesight due
to age-related macular degeneration: an accumulation of inflammation-related
protein and fat beneath the center of the retina that slowly destroys
it. The disorder runs in families, but the gene responsible had eluded
scientists. In March three separate teams announced that they had zeroed
in on a DNA sequence on chromosome 1 that carries the gene for complement
factor H, a protein involved in regulating inflammation. A mutation in
this gene may account for about half the cases of macular degeneration
in the United States.
This genetic culprit was revealed by a second and little-heralded phase
in the Human Genome Project, and it comes five years after a rough draft
of the entire human genome was announced. Touted as the key to deciphering
the genetic book of life, that initial sequence has proved most useful
for finding or confirming genetic mutations that cause rare diseases such
as Tay-Sachs disease and Huntington's. These alterations are relatively
easy to identify because they can be traced and isolated in families with
a history of the disease. Finding genetic clues to common diseases is
much more difficult because many genes-as well as lifestyle and environmental
exposures-may be involved. So rather than search the entire genome for
genes related to common cancers, heart disease, asthma, and diabetes,
scientists have turned to detecting inherited variations in the genomes
of different populations and how they may be linked to disease vulnerability.
The human genome contains 6 billion nucleotides, but the differences between
one person's DNA and another's are slight. Still, the scattered differences
that are common to various populations provide a map for hunting down
disease. Looking at whether shared variations-single-letter misspellings-in
vast chunks of DNA called haplotypes are correlated with certain diseases
can help researchers decide which segments of the genome to scour for
more specific clues. The project, called the HapMap, is the effort of
a six-nation consortium. The group has spent more than two years analyzing
DNA from 269 donors with diverse ancestry. They announced their first
major milestone-identifying 1 million of these common variations-in February.
To find the macular degeneration gene, researchers compared DNA from people
with and without the disease. All three teams found sections of DNA-haplotypes-that
differed and ultimately pinpointed a single-letter difference that changed
the amino-acid content of complement factor H. HapMap researchers say
that refining the map further will speed up such discoveries, and they
plan to release a new version this month that will include 4 million single-nucleotide
variants.
For now, the HapMap project does not mean new genetic tests for diseases
are about to appear, but at least one company is considering whether to
develop a test for genetic vulnerability to macular degeneration. Although
having the mutation more than doubles a person's risk of the disorder,
which causes loss of central vision, it doesn't mean that person will
automatically develop the disorder. Moreover, because no one is certain
about how to minimize risk, a test wouldn't have much practical value,
according to Stephen Daiger, a geneticist at the University of Texas Health
Sciences Center.
Yet there is good news for some patients. In July Genentech announced
that the drug Lucentis stabilized or even improved vision in a yearlong
clinical trial of patients with so-called wet macular degeneration, a
form that involves overgrowth of blood vessels. The drug works by inhibiting
a protein involved in blood-vessel formation. Lucentis is one of a handful
of other drugs that combat this form. No drugs are effective for the other,
far more common form of the disease.
|
Gene Test Report Card
|
|
DISEASE
|
GENE TESTED
|
NEW CASES PER YEAR
|
% OF CASES WITH GENE
|
CHANCE OF GETTING DISEASE
WITH GENE
|
|
Alzheimer’s
|
ApoE4
|
377,000
|
34%-65%
|
29%
|
|
Breast cancer
|
BRCA1,
BRCA2
|
>200,000
|
5%-10%
|
36-85%
|
|
Colon Cancer
|
APC,
MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2
|
145,000
|
5%
|
80%-90%
|
|
Alzheimer's Of
the three variants of the ApoEgene, ApoE4 carries the highest risk for
late-onset Alzheimer’s (other genes are associated with early-onset
Alzheimer’s). No cure or effective treatment exists for Alzheimer’s,
so ethicists usually advise against genetic testing unless there is a
strong family history or a diagnosis is in question.
Breast Cancer Out
of more than 200,000 new cases of breast cancer each year, about 10,000
or more are linked to the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Testing positive for the
gene means you have at least a 35 percent chance of developing breast
cancer. People with a family history of the disease use the test results
to help them decide what steps to take to preserve their health.
Colon Cancer About 7,000 patients a year
have a hereditary colon cancer associated with one or more gene variants.
All of these variants are linked to the onset of colon cancer by age 45
in most carriers. Testing may be advisable for people with a strong family
history of colon cancer in order to begin screening and management.
|
Although tests for many rare genetic disorders such as Tay-Sachs disease
and Huntington’s disease are available, only a few tests can predict the
risk of common diseases. And even where studies have linked a gene to a disease,
people carrying the gene or genes will not necessarily develop the disease;
they simply face an increased risk. Nor does not having the gene mean the person
will remain disease free, because many diseases result from interactions of
multiple genes and the environment. Below are examples of genetic tests that
are currently available and how predictive each is for individuals. Genetic
counseling should accompany these tests.
|
GENES ARE NOT DESTINY
David Altshuler, director of medical and population
genetics at the Broad Institute of Harvard University and MIT and an associate
professor of genetics and genetic medicine at Harvard, is hunting for
genetic clues to diabetes and prostate cancer.
Can population genetics—and genetic testing of individuals—predict
if someone will get a disease?
A:Population genetics is the study of variations in heredity that
run in families. We try to find a gene or genes responsible and learn
how they cause the variation. It is seldom predictive. Having a gene associated
with a disease is an indicator only that you might get that disease. It’s
like taking a cholesterol test. It’s a warning that the odds are
higher than normal. It can indicate a change in diet or lifestyle or an
intervention with a drug.
How accurate is the information?
A: Genetic markers are found all the time that come from comparing
people with a disease to those without the disease, but until you figure
out what the gene does, it is not useful information. There are a lot
of hucksters out there saying that this or that gene will predict a disease—it’s
not true for most common diseases. You have genes that definitely cause
rare genetic disorders like Huntington’s.
And tests for genes for diseases like breast cancer have been validated.
But for most common diseases, the data need to be thoroughly understood
and the link validated by having many labs replicate the findings. Many
times the findings are relevant only to a particular population where
the test was done. People should be skeptical of most of these tests.
Does sequencing the genes of animals such as the mouse and the dog
help us understand ourselves?
A: If you want to understand human genetics, you need to line up
a lot of species to compare genes to find how similar and different they
are. This tells us how these genes evolved and gives insight on what the
genes do and how mutations might be treated with drugs.
Will we ever have a little card we carry around that has our genome
on it?
A:We could already carry cards like that with family histories
or diseases and our latest blood tests, but we don’t. I’m
less interested in tests than treatments.
|
|