People in a genetic database have segments of DNA in common unexpectedly often

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/genetics-makes-some-people-more-likely-to-participate-in-genetic-studies/

by bookofjoe • 3 years ago

74 45 3 years ago

arstechnica.com

bookofjoe• 3 years ago

Studying the genetics of participation using footprints left on the ascertained genotypes

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-023-01439-2

NoZebra120vClip• 3 years ago

As was my father, and my father's father, and his father's father before him. My people come from the Land of Those Who Enroll in Genetic Studies. Our motto is "Doing Nations A Solid". Our flag has 23 stars. Do not call us "inbred"; we are simply family-friendly. Every February 3 (or 2 March if we are European) we gather for a family reunion where we spend 23 hours enrolling in every possible genetic study, and then the parents retire to their rooms where they joyously exchange genetic data with each other. (A lot of us are born around November 3!)

Obscurity4340• 3 years ago

Family²

vagab0nd• 3 years ago

Yes. All surveys are biased towards people who are willing to take the survey.

In the most extreme case, if your survey only has one question, "are you willing to take this survey?" you would get 100% "yes".

science4sail• 3 years ago

Would it be possible to remove that survey bias using coercion? For example, we could hire a gang to break into a supermarket and hold everyone there as hostages until they fill out a consumer preferences and brand visibility survey.

dalmo3• 3 years ago

Yes, that's how they do the GDP survey.

lazide• 3 years ago

Does someone preferring being shot result in a response?

midoridensha5• 3 years ago

The problem with this idea is that you're likely to get bad data: people forced into doing a survey aren't likely to want to answer honestly. Also remember, many surveys require you to think: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how often do you do X?" Answering this question honestly and accurately requires some thought. If you're forced to answer a barrage of questions like this before you're allowed to leave, the easiest and fastest thing to do is just mark the same number for all of them, or just a bunch of random numbers.

This is exactly why I think mandatory voting is stupid. Supporters claim it's better for democracy and forces people to choose leaders that represent them, but it doesn't: you can't force someone to care. You can't force someone to make an informed choice, instead of just randomly checking a box on a ballot.

kfichter• 3 years ago

Not if I force someone to unwillingly take your survey!

beaker522• 3 years ago

but then what if I force them to unwillingly punch you in the face and shout "NO!"?

I'm sure we can factor all this into the p-value somehow.

lmkg• 3 years ago

More likely around 96%. Don't neglect the Lizardman Constant.

kristopolous• 3 years ago

I just looked that up. Surely there's a non-zero percentage of people who do sincerely think David Icke's lizard people secretly control things.

I'm not claiming the insincerity constant is actually 0 but claiming it's 4% based on the assumption that those who must answer are being insincere, I think is incorrect.

Also have you taken those phone surveys? They go into "I really don't care" territory fast. "Now tell me, if you were going to buy toilet paper and there was a Walgreens, Rite-Aid, CVS, and Krogers, on a scale of 1 to 5, how often would you go into the Walgreens?"

rootw0rm• 3 years ago

give it to enough people and there will likely be that one person who just wants to see the world burn...their answer will be something like "hotdog juice"

jncfhnb• 3 years ago

The claim in question is that they are genetically predisposed to, that that they’re simply predisposed to.

dumbfounder• 3 years ago

But what if they say no?

reportgunner• 3 years ago

Looks good to me as long as the only answer in the survey is the "no"

alexfromapex• 3 years ago

A great example of self-selection bias

lo_zamoyski• 3 years ago

It may be the gene that controls for credulity, as those with the gene for paranoia are unlikely to cede their genetic information to some shady company.

kevinwuhoo• 3 years ago

This study was done using data from the UK Biobank [1] which is registered as a non-profit. Participants were also volunteers only.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Biobank

beaker522• 3 years ago

It's quite a fun thought experiment to think about how you might avoid this bias.

Send Blackhawk helicopters to collect samples by force? Was there bias in the selection technique? What about the people genetically predisposed to avoid the Blackhawk helicopters? We'd need multiple collection methods, and still need to retain an unbiased distribution. You can continue until you get to "we should set up global search patterns so that no human can escape our dystopian DNA collection". And even then you're still biased by population effects owing to the probability that there is a genetic population who have been predisposed to suppress their own genetic population at this point in time.

Gosh, it sounds like a fever dream.

astrange2• 3 years ago

There is more or less nothing useful someone can do with your genetic information, and there's no way you can prevent anyone from having it, since you leave it everywhere you go.

Symmetry• 3 years ago

Knowing I'm a FUT2 non-secreter has actually been pretty useful to me a few times not having to worry about taking care of people in norovirus outbreaks.

makeitdouble• 3 years ago

This feels like the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument for DNA.

It looks decent on the surface, but the more you dig in the more issues arise. Thinking about it for 30s:

- profiling is a direct use of DNA. Police had access to private dna banks and used the information extensively. Who else is using these same dna banks ?

- the same way people don't want AI farms to ingest their content, you might not want dna bases to ingest and process your dna for profit. You might actually eish a more ethical entity gets sole access to your information.

- you don't leave your dna everywhere. Getting a full dna sequence from hair or fingerprints is a myth at this point.

bglazer• 3 years ago

It’s worth noting that the reason nothing “useful” can be done with genetic information in the United States is the Genetic information Nondiscrimination act of 2008.

This prevents insurers from denying coverage or increasing premiums based on genetic information. It also prevents employers from making hiring or promotion decisions based on genetics.

These are the most straightforward ways in which companies could profit off your genetic information. Basically denying insurance coverage or employment if they think you’re likely to get ill from a genetic disease.

There’s also a much murkier aspect in which employers could try to guess your intelligence based on genetics. I’m absolutely certain employers would do try to do this despite it having virtually no utility.

8jef• 3 years ago

Out of sheer curiosity, I've mailed a swab taken from my mouth, after payment, so long ago, I can't remember which came first: that, or me closing my first Facebook account and becoming techno anxious (paranoid of some sort). I'm guessing I like trying stupid things before reflecting on them, because novelty factor.

JoeAltmaier3• 3 years ago

Did they control for culture? No? Then we explain this coincidence with "Children do as their parents did"

Similarly, we can claim genetic basis for wanting an education, investing in the stock market, choosing a Chevy over a Ford, going to Gramma Ethyl's at Christmas.

consilient• 3 years ago

It's right there in the article.

The analysis done by Kong and his student relies on the key idea that a genetic sequence that occurs more frequently in participants than in nonparticipants will also occur more frequently in the genetic regions that are shared by two related participants.
Put differently, a bit of DNA that is common in the population will show up frequently in the study. But it will still only have a 50/50 chance of showing up in the child of someone who carried a copy. If a bit of DNA makes people more likely to enroll in genetic studies, it will be more common both in the overall data and among closely related family members.
So they checked the genetic sequences shared between first-degree relatives—either parents and children or siblings (but not twins)—in the UK Biobank.

JoeAltmaier3• 3 years ago

Ok I guess that explains it. Still not following too well. If it's more common thatn 50/50 in children in the study of parents in the study, then it's probably involved in making 'genetic study' a predisposition?

Still pretty thin, maybe. Could be intelligence, or outgoing nature, or adaptability. Not some mysterious 'genetic study' gene.

robwwilliams• 3 years ago

The right question to ask is: How big is the cumulative effect size of these genetic differences? The answer is — detectible but also negligible for most research purposes (bias correction). Even negligible effects can be highly “significant” based on statistical criteria when sample size is large enough.

The authors summarize the effect size in terms of standard deviation units. Here is the text, where pPGS mean “participation polygenic score” that is used to summarized the genetic scores influencing participation likelihood in UK Biobank.

“The pPGS with weights derived from the GWASs using data of the first half (pPGS1) has average value for the second half of the sibling pairs that is 0.044 s.d. higher than that of the unrelateds (P=5.0×10−6). In reverse, the first half of the sibling pairs have average pPGS2 value, weights derived from the second half, that is 0.026 s.d. higher than the unrelateds (P=8.5×10−3).”

To put this into context: From Wikipedia: “… the average height for adult men in the United States is about 70 inches, with a standard deviation of around 3 inches.” That means that 0.05 s.d. units is equivalent 0.15 inches or 0.38 cm.

People in a genetic database have segments of DNA in common unexpectedly often

Related Stories