Today, Navigenics and 23andme released a joint letter addressing the Opinion piece by Pauline C. Ng, Sarah S. Murray, Samuel Levy and J. Craig Venter that appeared in the October 8, 2009 issue of Nature. Unfortunately, Nature could not publish the letter because of space restrictions, so 23andMe and Navigenics decided to publish the letter to our respective sites.
An excerpt of the joint letter is below. You can find the complete letter on our website.
***
Dear Editor:
We read with interest the Opinion piece entitled “An agenda for personalized medicine” in the October 8, 2009 edition of Nature. Our two companies, though commercially distinct with differentiated products, would like to respond to this piece jointly to show our commitment to working together in an open, transparent fashion.
Our companies agree with most of the recommendations Ng and colleagues made. Without doubt, genotype-based risk prediction for common, multifactorial diseases is still in its infancy. More work must be done to standardize markers used; to better explain the contribution of genetics to common, complex diseases; and to incorporate common genetic variants into clinical practice. Each company, however, has a few points of disagreement and/or explanation it feels important to articulate. These points from each company follow.
Response by Navigenics:
With regard to the specific recommendations, Navigenics agrees with most of the suggestions. For example, we agree with the authors that results showing less than average risk should not be a primary point of focus, a viewpoint that has been incorporated into our service offering in a variety of ways. Ng et al. recommend “that DTC companies report the proportion of the genetic contribution of a disease that can be attributed to the markers used in their test…” There are many metrics that can be used to describe the completeness/accuracy of these types of tests. However, each of them has advantages and disadvantages, and all can be misinterpreted by experts and laypersons alike. Furthermore, the call for such information must be put in context with currently implemented non-genetic risk communication. For example, does your doctor know/communicate what percentage of the total risk of cardiac disease is contributed by your cholesterol level? Or your family history? Clearly, risk communication has, and will continue to be, an important area of research for the community.
We agree that associations must be replicated in other ethnicities; that prospective studies will be helpful in further assessing the validity of predictions; and that sequencing should be used when the technology becomes more affordable. The monitoring of behavioral outcomes is another important avenue for future research, and to this end, Navigenics is collaborating with the Scripps Translational Science Institute on a 20-year longitudinal outcomes study. Pharmacogenomic markers may also offer immediate value to individuals.
We also agree on the importance of including the same strong-effect markers, and with a few exceptions, our companies are consistent. A standard set of markers would be valuable to the industry and personalized medicine in general, and it may be most practical for a third party to assess clinical validity. The catalog of genome-wide association loci sponsored by the National Human Genome Research Institute is an example of such a resource. Further public-private efforts could be placed into grading the cumulative evidence supporting various marker-disease associations using, for example, the Venice criteria.
Regarding the use of surrogate risk markers, Navigenics initially used markers in linkage disequilibrium with published SNPs (with a requirement of r2 = 1) to tag SNPs that were not on its genotyping platform. However, Navigenics now directly targets published SNPs, except for a few loci in the HLA region.
***
You can find the complete letter on our website. If you have any questions, please let us know by posting a comment.
At Navigenics, our team is used to being recognized in the fields of genetics and medicine. But being described as “hot”? That turf is, well, a little less familiar to most of us in the genetics world. So imagine our attentiveness when San Francisco-based magazine “
More than 40 percent of all breast cancer cases could be prevented through basic lifestyle changes, a 
At
Atkins. Ornish. Weight Watchers. South Beach. The Zone.