Genetic Background of Patients from a University Medical Center in Manhattan: Implications for Personalized Medicine

Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois, United States of America.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.23). 05/2011; 6(5):e19166. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019166
Source: PubMed


The rapid progress currently being made in genomic science has created interest in potential clinical applications; however, formal translational research has been limited thus far. Studies of population genetics have demonstrated substantial variation in allele frequencies and haplotype structure at loci of medical relevance and the genetic background of patient cohorts may often be complex.
To describe the heterogeneity in an unselected clinical sample we used the Affymetrix 6.0 gene array chip to genotype self-identified European Americans (N = 326), African Americans (N = 324) and Hispanics (N = 327) from the medical practice of Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan, NY. Additional data from US minority groups and Brazil were used for external comparison. Substantial variation in ancestral origin was observed for both African Americans and Hispanics; data from the latter group overlapped with both Mexican Americans and Brazilians in the external data sets. A pooled analysis of the African Americans and Hispanics from NY demonstrated a broad continuum of ancestral origin making classification by race/ethnicity uninformative. Selected loci harboring variants associated with medical traits and drug response confirmed substantial within- and between-group heterogeneity.
As a consequence of these complementary levels of heterogeneity group labels offered no guidance at the individual level. These findings demonstrate the complexity involved in clinical translation of the results from genome-wide association studies and suggest that in the genomic era conventional racial/ethnic labels are of little value.

Download full-text


Available from: Huaizhen Qin, Jan 28, 2014
  • Source
    • "The majority of studies that require this information use self-reported ancestry as a proxy for biogeographic ancestry. However, this practice has many limitations (Pfaff et al., 2001; Klimentidis et al., 2009; Tayo et al., 2011), especially for recently admixed individuals, such as Hispanics or African Americans, whose genetic ancestry has been shaped by admixture from several source continental populations, and the precise contribution from each source population is often unknown. In the case of African Americans, for example, it is often useful to determine the degree of African ancestry for each individual (i.e., that individual’s admixture proportions). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The determination of the ancestry and genetic backgrounds of the subjects in genetic and general epidemiology studies is a crucial component in the analysis of relevant outcomes or associations. Although there are many methods for differentiating ancestral subgroups among individuals based on genetic markers only a few of these methods provide actual estimates of the fraction of an individual's genome that is likely to be associated with different ancestral populations. We propose a method for assigning ancestry that works in stages to refine estimates of ancestral population contributions to individual genomes. The method leverages genotype data in the public domain obtained from individuals with known ancestries. Although we showcase the method in the assessment of ancestral genome proportions leveraging largely continental populations, the strategy can be used for assessing within-continent or more subtle ancestral origins with the appropriate data.
    Frontiers in Genetics 01/2012; 3:322. DOI:10.3389/fgene.2012.00322
  • Source

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Scientific and policy interest in health disparities, defined as systematic, plausibly avoidable health differences adversely affecting socially disadvantaged groups, has increased markedly over the past few decades. Like other research, research in health disparities is strongly influenced by the underlying conceptual model of the hypothetical causes of disparities. Conceptual models are important and a major source of debate because multiple types of factors and processes may be involved in generating disparities, because different disciplines emphasize different types of factors, and because the conceptual model often drives what is studied, how results are interpreted, and which interventions are identified as most promising. This article reviews common conceptual approaches to health disparities including the genetic model, the fundamental cause model, the pathways model, and the interaction model. Strengths and limitations of the approaches are highlighted. The article concludes by outlining key elements and implications of an integrative systems-based conceptual model.
    Annual Review of Public Health 04/2011; 33(1):41-58. DOI:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124534 · 6.47 Impact Factor
Show more