Of interest to clinical pathologists is the finding that sequencing the genomes of Humans and Neanderthals revealed a link between severity of COVID-19 infections and Neanderthal DNA
Genetic scientists from the University of California Santa Cruz have learned that just 7%—or less—of our DNA is unique to the human species, with the remainder of our genomes coming from other archaic species, such as Neanderthal and Denisovan.
Why should this matter to pathologists and clinical laboratories? Because a broader knowledge of how DNA evolves may help researchers and healthcare providers better understand how a modern family’s DNA can change over generations. In turn, these insights may lead to precision medicine tools for personalized diagnosis and treatment.
“We find that a low fraction, 1.5 to 7%, of the human genome is uniquely human, with the remainder comprising lineages shared with archaic hominins from either ILS [incomplete lineage sorting] or [genetic] admixture,” wrote the paper’s authors.
To complete their study, the researchers used DNA extracted from fossils of Neanderthals and Denisovans, as well as genetic information from 279 people from various locations around the world.
One goal was to determine what part of a modern human’s genome is truly unique. Though only a small percentage of our entire genome, those portions are important.
“We can tell those regions of the genome are highly enriched for genes that have to do with neural development and brain function,” Richard Green, PhD, Associate Professor of Biomolecular Engineering at the University of California Santa Cruz and co-author of the paper, told the Associated Press (AP).
In addition to highlighting what makes modern humans unique as a species, the study also suggests, “That we’re actually a very young species. Not that long ago, we shared the planet with other human lineages,” said Joshua Akey, PhD, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics at Princeton University. Akey co-authored the Science Advances research paper.
Human/Neanderthal Genetic Overlap
The genetic research being conducted at the University of California Santa Cruz is just the most recent in a flurry of studies over the past decade investigating the Neanderthal genome. Most of these studies point to the vast similarities between humans and Neanderthals, but also to how similar humans are to each other.
“Humans have more than three billion letter pairs of DNA in their genome: It turns out less than 2% of that spells out around 20,000 specific genes, or sets of instructions that code for the proteins that make our tissues,” wrote zooarcheologist Anna Goldfield, PhD (above), Adjunct Instructor Cosumnes River College in Sacramento, Calif., and at the University of California, Davis, in Sapiens. “All humans share the same basic set of genes (we all have a gene for earwax consistency, for example), but there are subtle variations in the DNA spelling of those genes from individual to individual that result in slightly different proteins (sticky earwax versus dry earwax) … Overall, any given human being is about 99.9% similar, genetically, to any other human being,” she added. It is those variations that could lead to precision medicine treatments, personalized drug therapies, and clinical laboratory tests that inform physicians about relevant genetic variations. (Photo copyright: Boston University.)
Practically Everyone Has Neanderthal DNA
Understanding that humans and Neanderthals are 93-98.5% similar genetically may—or may not—come as a surprise. In delving into those similarities and differences researchers are making interesting and potentially important discoveries.
For example, researchers have studied a gene that occurs in both modern humans and Neanderthal fossils that has to do with how the body responds to carcinogenic hydrocarbons, such as smoke from burning wood. Neanderthals were far more sensitive to the carcinogens, but also had more genetic variants, such as single-nucleotide polymorphisms, that could neutralize their effects.
Most modern humans carry some Neanderthal DNA. For some time, scientists thought that Africans likely did not carry Neanderthal DNA, since ancient people tended to migrate out of Africa and met Neanderthals in Europe. More recent research, however, shows that migration patterns were more complex than previously thought, and that the ancient people migrated back to Africa bringing Neanderthal DNA with them.
“Our results show this history was much more interesting and there were many waves of dispersal out of Africa, some of which led to admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals that we see in the genomes of all living individuals today,” Akey told CNN.
Neanderthal DNA and COVID-19
Researchers have found that having Neanderthal DNA may affect the health of modern people who carry it. Perception of pain, immune system function, and even hair color and sleeping patterns have been associated with having Neanderthal DNA.
Scientists have even found a potential link between severe COVID-19 infection and Neanderthal DNA, CNN reported.
The researchers added, “It turns out that this gene variant was inherited by modern humans from the Neanderthals when they interbred some 60,000 years ago. Today, the people who inherited this gene variant are three times more likely to need artificial ventilation if they are infected by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.”
Of course, these links and associations are preliminary science. John Capra, PhD, Research Associate Professor of Biological Sciences and Associate Professor of Biomedical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco says, “We can’t blame Neanderthals for COVID. That’s a damaging response, and that’s why I want to emphasize so much [that] the social and environmental factors are the real things that people should be worrying about,” he told CNN.
“That said,” he continued, “as a geneticist, I think it is important to know the evolutionary history of the genetic variants we find that do have effects on traits. The effects of Neanderthal DNA traits are detectable, but they’re modest.”
Nevertheless, genetic scientists agree that understanding the genetic roots of disorders could lead to breakthroughs that result in new types of clinical laboratory tests designed to guide precision medicine treatments.
Results of the UK study confirm for clinical laboratory professionals the importance of fully understanding the design and function of SNP chips they may be using in their labs
Here is another example of a long-established clinical laboratory test that—upon new evidence—turns out to be not as accurate as once thought. According to research conducted at the University of Exeter in Devon, UK, Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips (aka, SNP microarrays)—technology commonly used in commercial genetic testing—is inadequate at detecting rare gene variants that can increase breast cancer risk.
A news release announcing the results of the large-scale study states, “A technology that is widely used by commercial genetic testing companies is ‘extremely unreliable’ in detecting very rare variants, meaning results suggesting individuals carry rare disease-causing genetic variants are usually wrong.”
Why is this a significant finding for clinical laboratories? Because medical laboratories performing genetic tests that use SNP chips should be aware that rare genetic variants—which are clinically relevant to a patient’s case—may not be detected and/or reported by the tests they are running.
UK Researchers Find ‘Shockingly High False Positives’
The conclusion reached by the Exeter researchers, the BMJ study states, is that “SNP chips are extremely unreliable for genotyping very rare pathogenic variants and should not be used to guide health decisions without validation.”
Leigh Jackson, PhD, Lecturer in Genomic Medicine at University of Exeter and co-author of the BMJ study, said in the news release, “The number of false positives on rare genetic variants produced by SNP chips was shockingly high. To be clear: a very rare, disease-causing variant detected using [an] SNP chip is more likely to be wrong than right.”
In the news release, Caroline Wright, PhD (above), Professor in Genomic Medicine at the University of Exeter Medical School and senior author of the BMJ study, said, “SNP chips are fantastic at detecting common genetic variants, yet we have to recognize that tests that perform well in one scenario are not necessarily applicable to others.” She added, “We’ve confirmed that SNP chips are extremely poor at detecting very rare disease-causing genetic variants, often giving false positive results that can have profound clinical impact. These false results had been used to schedule invasive medical procedures that were both unnecessary and unwarranted.” (Photo copyright: University of Exeter.)
Large-Scale Study Taps UK Biobank Data
The Exeter researchers were concerned about cases of unnecessary invasive medical procedures being scheduled by women after learning of rare genetic variations in BRCA1 (breast cancer type 1) and BRCA2 (breast cancer 2) tests.
“The inherent technical limitation of SNP chips for correctly detecting rare genetic variants is further exacerbated when the variants themselves are linked to very rare diseases. As with any diagnostic test, the positive predictive value for low prevalence conditions will necessarily be low in most individuals. For pathogenic BRCA variants in the UK Biobank, the SNP chips had an extremely low positive predictive value (1-17%) when compared with sequencing. Were these results to be fed back to individuals, the clinical implications would be profound. Women with a positive BRCA result face a lifetime of additional screening and potentially prophylactic surgery that is unwarranted in the case of a false positive result,” they wrote.
Using UK Biobank data from 49,908 participants (55% were female), the researchers compared next-generation sequencing (NGS) to SNP chip genotyping. They found that SNP chips—which test genetic variation at hundreds-of-thousands of specific locations across the genome—performed well when compared to NGS for common variants, such as those related to type 2 diabetes and ancestry assessment, the study noted.
“Because SNP chips are such a widely used and high-performing assay for common genetic variants, we were also surprised that the differing performance of SNP chips for detecting rare variants was not well appreciated in the wider research or medical communities. Luckily, we had recently received both SNP chip and genome-wide DNA sequencing data on 50,000 individuals through the UK Biobank—a population cohort of adult volunteers from across the UK. This large dataset allowed us to systematically investigate the performance of SNP chips across millions of genetic variants with a wide range of frequencies, down to those present in fewer than 1 in 50,000 individuals,” wrote Wright and Associate Professor of Bioinformatics and Human Genetics at Exeter, Michael Weedon, PhD, in a BMJ blog post.
The Exeter researchers also analyzed data from a small group of people in the Personal Genome Project who had both SNP genotyping and sequencing information available. They focused their analysis on rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
The researchers found:
The rarer the variant, the less reliable the test result. For example, for “very rare variants” in less than one in 100,000 people, 84% found by SNP chips were false positives.
Low positive predictive values of about 16% for very rare variants in the UK Biobank.
Nearly all (20 of 21) customers of commercial genetic testing had at least one false positive rare disease-causing variant incorrectly genotyped.
SNP chips detect common genetic variants “extremely well.”
Advantages and Capabilities of SNP Chips
Compared to next-gen genetic sequencing, SNP chips are less costly. The chips use “grids of hundreds of thousands of beads that react to specific gene variants by glowing in different colors,” New Scientist explained.
Common variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 can be found using SNP chips with 99% accuracy, New Scientist reported based on study data.
However, when the task is to find thousands of rare variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, SNP chips do not fare so well.
“It is just not the right technology for the job when it comes to rare variants. They’re excellent for the common variants that are present in lots of people. But the rarer the variant is, the less likely they are to be able to correctly detect it,” Wright told CNN.
SNP chips can’t detect all variants because they struggle to cluster needed data, the Exeter researchers explained.
“SNP chips perform poorly for genotyping rare genetic variants owing to their reliance on data clustering. Clustering data from multiple individuals with similar genotypes works very well when variants are common,” the researchers wrote. “Clustering becomes more difficult as the number of people with a particular genotype decreases.”
Clinical laboratories Using SNP Chips
The researchers at Exeter unveiled important information that pathologists and medical laboratory professionals will want to understand and monitor. Cancer patients with rare genetic variants may not be diagnosed accurately because SNP chips were not designed to identify specific genetic variants. Those patients may need additional testing to validate diagnoses and prevent harm.
This and similar research initiatives expected to increase the number of genetic markers that would be useful for creating clinical pathology laboratory tests and therapeutic drugs
Whole human genome sequencing continues to become faster, easier, cheaper, and more accurate to do. Because of these advances, the sheer number of human genomes being sequenced is skyrocketing. This huge increase in data is helping researchers unlock many new insights that, in turn, are fueling efforts to develop useful new medical laboratory tests and therapeutic drugs.
This is happening at the University of Washington (UW), where researchers using new genome sequencing technology are uncovering thousands of never-before-seen genetic variants. The application of “long read” gene sequencing technologies is allowing these researchers to identify genetic variants previously unknown, and that are made up of between 50 and 5,000 base pairs.
The discovery is important for two reasons. First, it could close existing gaps in the genome map. Second, it could help scientists identify new genomic variations that are closely associated with difficult-to-diagnose diseases. Of interest to pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals, such discoveries could point to expanded use of genetic testing for diagnosis and treatment of disease. (more…)
Pathologists are positioned to be the primary interpreters of big data as genomic medicine further evolves
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers may be surprised to learn that at least one data scientist has proclaimed pathologists the real big data rock stars of healthcare. The reason has to do with the shift in focus of genomic medicine from therapeutics and presymptomatic disease assessment to big data analytics.
