
Mysterious mutants: 13 masked people should have devastating diseases but don’t - walterbell
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/mysterious-mutants-13-masked-people-should-have-devastating-diseases-but-dont/
======
planetjones
While interesting the 13 people could have a mosaicism or a mistake could have
been made. There is no way to tell as the study was anonymised. So until
another study is done which offers traceability back to the 'mutants' we'll
never know if there is anything useful here or not.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
We should use this information to genetically engineer disease resistant
people.

I say "we should" because if we don't the <insert technically advanced nation
of your choice here> will.

Would it be possible to use this data to modify the DNA of a sperm / egg cell
combo? Are we there yet?

~~~
pmalynin
I read somewhere that some team already was able to create viable embryos with
modified genetic materials albeit the embryos were terminated after reaching a
certain stage of replication.

~~~
cariaso
most recently [http://www.nature.com/news/second-chinese-team-reports-
gene-...](http://www.nature.com/news/second-chinese-team-reports-gene-editing-
in-human-embryos-1.19718)

added [http://snpedia.com/index.php/Rs333](http://snpedia.com/index.php/Rs333)
for HIV immunity.

the embryos were pre-non-viable.

------
gnur
One of the most difficult parts is both the desire (and possibly need) to
gather more DNA from a pool as large as possible, with the option for re-
contact for further investigation while also keeping that data safe and
anonymous to prevent this being an incredible valuable target for both
governments and corporations.

------
GaiusCoffee
I think I watched a Bayes Probability vid on Youtube that basically says that
13 out of the 600,000 is most probably false results..

------
Kristine1975
SciHub link to research paper: [http://sci-
hub.io/http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncu...](http://sci-
hub.io/http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.3514.html)

------
koolba
Fear not as we'll eventually track down these 13 people once we combine these
disparate DNA data sources. They might not have identity information in this
particular dataset, but if one finds that same sequence in another dataset
that does have that information, it's not too hard to piece these together.

Best part is that we don't even need it to be exact! We can look for their
relatives instead and use that to narrow the search:
[http://fusion.net/story/215204/law-enforcement-agencies-
are-...](http://fusion.net/story/215204/law-enforcement-agencies-are-asking-
ancestry-com-and-23andme-for-their-customers-dna/)

------
oli5679
Even if the sequencing process has very high accuracy, the conditional
probability these people having the genes but not disorders could be low.

By Bayes Rule:

PR(Gene & no disorder | disorder result) =

Pr(disorder result | gene & no disorder) * Pr(gene & no disorder)

/ Pr(disorder result | gene & no disorder) * Pr(gene & no disorder) +
Pr(disorder result | no gene & no disorder) * Pr(no gene & no disorder)

Even if the test is incredibly accurate and so Pr(disorder result) is much
higher for people with the gene, this may be outweighed by the relative
likelihood of having the disorder given you have the gene (this could
plausibily be 1!), making the conditional probability very low.

~~~
pingou
But will the test always give a false positive for some people or is it
usually more random?

If it is, then just test the sequences again.

~~~
oli5679
Yeah, if you have tests without strong correlations then your approach is a
good one. My point is that when your test returns a result which had low prior
probability (even if the test is accurate) you should often retain a lot of
your scepticism. In this context, it may well be that many of the people
identified didn't have the genetic disorders indicated...

------
atemerev
23andme keeps telling me that I am most definitely having lactose intolerance.

But I don't.

