Genomics and Privacy: Implications of the New Reality of
Closed Data for the Field
Dov Greenbaum1,2,3,4,5, Andrea Sboner1,2¤, Xinmeng Jasmine Mu1, Mark Gerstein1,2,6*
1Program in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 2Department of Molecular Biophysics and
Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 3Sanford T. Colb & Co. Intellectual Property Law, Marmorek, Rehovot, Israel, 4Center for
Health Law, Bioethics and Health Policy, Kiryat Ono College, Israel, 5Center for Law and the Biosciences, Stanford Law School, Stanford University, California, United States
of America, 6Department of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
Abstract: Open source and open data have been driving
forces in bioinformatics in the past. However, privacy
concerns may soon change the landscape, limiting future
access to important data sets, including personal geno-
mics data. Here we survey this situation in some detail,
describing, in particular, how the large scale of the data
from personal genomic sequencing makes it especially
hard to share data, exacerbating the privacy problem. We
also go over various aspects of genomic privacy: first,
there is basic identifiability of subjects having their
genome sequenced. However, even for individuals who
have consented to be identified, there is the prospect of
very detailed future characterization of their genotype,
which, unanticipated at the time of their consent, may be
more personal and invasive than the release of their
medical records. We go over various computational
strategies for dealing with the issue of genomic privacy.
One can ‘‘slice’’ and reformat datasets to allow them to be
partially shared while securing the most private variants.
This is particularly applicable to functional genomics
information, which can be largely processed without
variant information. For handling the most private data
there are a number of legal and technological approach-
es—for example, modifying the informed consent proce-
dure to acknowledge that privacy cannot be guaranteed,
and/or employing a secure cloud computing environ-
ment. Cloud computing in particular may allow access to
the data in a more controlled fashion than the current
practice of downloading and computing on large
datasets. Furthermore, it may be particularly advanta-
geous for small labs, given that the burden of many
privacy issues falls disproportionately on them in com-
parison to large corporations and genome centers. Finally,
we discuss how education of future genetics researchers
will be important, with curriculums emphasizing privacy
and data security. However, teaching personal genomics
with identifiable subjects in the university setting will, in
turn, create additional privacy issues and social conun-
This is an ‘‘Editors’ Outlook’’ article for PLoS
The Current Situation in Bioinformatics: Tensions
between Open Data and Limited Access
Bioinformatics’ explosive growth over the past decades owes a
lot to the open-source and open-data mentality of its practitioners.
The biological sciences, and particularly computational biology
and bioinformatics, have been driving forces in the development of
data mining tools due, in part, to the availability of huge open data
sets; this enormous amount of freely available data has become
part of the ethos of genomics research. In contrast, in the social
sciences, finance, and legal fields, large-scale data sets on the order
of those found in bioinformatics are hard to find, and data is often
sold rather than freely available.
Open-source software, such as software developed under the
GNU license or operating systems such as Linux, was an original
inspiration. It has allowed for the development of novel tools and
code that can be improved, modified, and tweaked by subsequent
users to precisely fit the current needs of individual researchers.
Open source software was and continues to be used to build,
maintain and mine databases that have greatly facilitated the
development of bioinformatics research. Open data goes hand in
hand with open source, as it is essential for the development and
testing of open software tools. Much open data has been available
to the bioinformatics community from a variety of databases,
including the Protein Data Bank (PDB), a repository for
macromolecular structures  (established 1971), and the National
Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which houses
genomic sequences and other biotechnology-related information
Open data not only provides the non-experimentalist with the
necessary information to conduct analyses, but it allows for the
replication and validation of previously published results. Further,
sharing data allows for important nomenclature and terminology
standards to be developed and refined, a necessity as data sets
continue to get larger and more complex. The virtue in open data
is so great that it has been become virtually a precondition for
Citation: Greenbaum D, Sboner A, Mu XJ, Gerstein M (2011) Genomics and
Privacy: Implications of the New Reality of Closed Data for the Field. PLoS Comput
Biol 7(12): e1002278. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002278
Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of
Published December 1, 2011
Copyright: ? 2011 Greenbaum et al. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.
Funding: Funding was provided by NIH grants. The funders had no role in the
preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests
* E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
¤ Current address: Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Institute
for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New
York, United States of America
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org1December 2011 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e1002278
funding labs for genome sequencing. Moreover, several scientific
journals require the data to be publicly available before accepting
a manuscript for publication.
There has always existed, however, tension between the open-
source/open-data movement, represented by academic bioinfor-
matics, and those who would rather limit access. In some
instances, those in favor of limited access are concerned about
patient privacy—as is often the case in the medical fields.
However, others have attempted to develop databases that were
closed or of limited access to the basic science research public for
commercial business purposes. This dichotomy was most dramat-
ically presented in the initial sequencing of the human genome,
which involved a ‘‘competition’’ between a public consortium,
which favored the open-data approach, and Celera, a private
company trying to develop a propriety database related to human
genomics and claim associated intellectual property (IP) rights .
The Future: More Closed Data?
Bioinformatics today is at a crossroads, and the pendulum is
definitely swinging in favor of more limited access to data. This
shift is happening for a number of reasons: First, the sheer size of
the data makes readily transferring it and sharing it more difficult
than it has been in the past. Secondly, the nature of the data is
becoming more personally revealing, and is therefore considered
more private and protectable. As we will describe, this more
limited access to data is of particular concern to small labs and
With next-generation sequencers bringing down the cost of
analysis faster than Moore’s law (http://genome.gov/sequencing
costs/), data sets are becoming so large and unwieldy that it is
often difficult to download and locally analyze relevant data; in the
not-so-distant past, bioinformatics data were freely uploaded and
downloaded using off-the-shelf, and/or lab-based web servers.
In addition to physical practical constraints on sharing,
researchers may encounter an increased amount of IP protections
and restrictions on data. These protections are experiencing a
renewed emphasis as a result of efforts to commodify genomic
information. IP protection is non-trivial and scientific data can be
controlled, depending on the particular jurisdiction, under
numerous different IP regimes, often simultaneously . Although
the legal issues surrounding this control are in flux and constantly
evolving, and there remain broad discrepancies as to how
bioinformatics will be legally protected around the world, the
use of these protected datasets can still have significant legal
repercussions, even for public research institutions.
Privacy in Personal Genomics: Scale,
Identification, and Characterization
In addition to the various IP protections, the handling of private
and sensitive information that can now be collected with new
sequencing technology necessitates additional levels of protection
for data, further limiting its access. And, as genome sequencing
reveals more about an individual, the distinction will be harder to
make between medical records and human genome sequences.
In general, when collecting data from human subjects, it is
important that each subject be fully informed of the experimental
protocols and the data collected from those experiments, before
giving their consent. Human subject protocols should be designed
to minimize the potential of harm to the subject, while maximizing
the potential benefits. For example, post-data collection: (i)
protections must be in place to prevent unauthorized access to
human subject data; (ii) access must be restricted to those
individuals with a legitimate research interest in the data, who
also must understand how to properly handle the data to keep it
out of the wrong hands; and (iii) data must also be properly
disposed of when no longer needed. For digital data, the
information technology (IT) administrators of the systems on
which this data is stored have a responsibility to maintain strong
IT security policies, and keep the systems fully patched, with up-
to-date antivirus definitions, for example.
The above text is fairly generic, and many of the issues have
already been broached with the development of electronic patient
records that collect, store, and share medical data typically across
health care operators. A comprehensive set of rules and
regulations have already been promulgated to ensure that sensitive
information is accessed only by authorized people, and with the
final goal to improve the quality of care .
However, the nature of the current data sets being churned out
requires a different approach.
First, there is the scale of the data. It is much more difficult to
deal with terabytes of encrypted data in the framework of large
calculations than it is to deal with a small amount of encrypted text
in a medical record meant to be read by humans. To do proper in-
depth processing of next-generation sequencing data, conventional
encryption becomes rather cumbersome and difficult.
Second, the identification of DNA sequence variants can readily
act as a source of identifiable information. In particular, a
minimum number of 75 independent SNPs, if not fewer, will
uniquely identify a person, albeit without being able to phenotype
that individual with the limited SNP data . However, the degree
to which DNA data is identifiable is not always obvious.
Therefore, until recently, given the onerous requirements for
explicit consent for each individual’s data set , approaches were
developed to facilitate research on these data sets via de-
identification of patient information . The data treated this
way has been made publicly available in the past and has further
facilitated discoveries in medical research.
It has recently been shown, however, that it is even possible to
re-identify genotyped individuals or even individuals in pooled
mixtures of DNA . Once re-identified, this gives rise to the
potential for the revelation of significantly personal information,
regarding the formerly anonymous source. This prompted the
United States National Institute of Health (NIH), the Broad
Institute in the US, and the Wellcome Trust in the United
Kingdom to further restrict the access to the data from genome-
wide association studies.
The risk of identification comes from multiple possible different
sources. In general, while data sets in genomics research can be
anonymized they often need not be, depending on the wishes of
the patients. Thus, on a simple level, some patients will opt to
provide their DNA without any preconditions. In other instances,
patients will consent to have their DNA analyzed but will insist on
not being identified. And, in between these extremes, subjects will
provide DNA without restriction provided that it be used only for
a particular direction of research, but may limit the usage of the
DNA for say, research into a disease with an attached stigma.
Further, there are many instances where one might gain access
to DNA to cross reference with a publicly available data set. These
include, but are not limited to: (i) surreptitiously obtaining DNA
from a discarded personal item; (ii) other public or private DNA
databases such as those kept by law enforcement; (iii) biological
samples from medical procedures; (iv) DNA samples from close
relatives; or, (v) one’s own DNA in determining a biological
Third, it is important to distinguish between the issues of
identification and of characterization. Even if subjects consent to
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org2 December 2011 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e1002278
revealing their identity, they may not have consented to detailed
characterization. That is, a consenting subject might not realize
how much information is being given away by genome
sequencing. Those who subscribe to the notion of genomic
exceptionalism, i.e., that genetic data is somehow categorically
different than other forms of medical information, in particular,
note that genomic data is much more informative than standard
medical records as it can provide risk-related data pertaining to
medical and non-medical conditions across family trees, including
risks of future illness, undiagnosed psychiatric conditions, and even
physical traits. And while we cannot currently fully interpret it, we
will soon be able to, and once this information is published it
cannot be taken back. Furthermore, the fact that children carry
half the genetic information of their parents implies that a decision
to reveal one’s genetic information today has repercussions for
generations to come.
How Difficult Is It to Deal with Private Data Sets?
Under the current open-data regime, bioinformatics investiga-
tors can directly access the data hosted by repositories such as
Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) , ArrayExpress ,
GenBank , or use free web tools such as Ensembl  or
the UCSC GenomeBrowser . Effort from the final user
viewpoint is limited to transfer time and the size of the data set.
The burden on big research centers as well as small labs is
equivalent and nearly non-existent.
Current human genomics data—in particular, readouts from
next-generation sequencing—contains a lot of information that
can, in principle, both identify and characterize an individual.
Hence, in this context, these data need to be properly managed,
and accessing them requires proper controls. To illustrate the
impact of closed data in a traditionally open world, we describe
aspects of the interaction with the database of Genotypes and
Phenotypes (dbGaP)  and the International Cancer Genome
Consortium (ICGC) . Both provide excellent examples on how
to properly handle private information for research studies.
However, access to the private part of the databases is far from
‘‘click-and-download’’, which many researchers are used to.
Access often requires institutional review board (IRB) authoriza-
tion. For example, ICGC requires IRB authorization prior to the
submission of the application to access and download the data.
Typically, this entails a description of the requested data, the
management of the data on the user’s site (e.g., for digital data,
security levels of stored data, and the list of authorized people
accessing them), and the type of analysis. This process can take
several weeks or a few months depending on the institution.
Moreover, if the researcher wants to perform additional analyses
that were not foreseen at the time of the first IRB authorization,
due for example to advances in computational algorithms, or to
the availability of new data sets allowing for integrated analysis, a
second authorization may be required. Although these restricted
controls satisfy the need for privacy protection of the data, the
administrative burden may limit their accessibility to only those
who really take the effort to access them. When possible,
researchers may prefer to use freely available genomics data. An
example of such freely available data is that provided by the
Personal Genome Project (PGP). For example, since fall 2008,
more than 34,000 investigators have viewed the genomic data of
the first PGP individual, i.e., a rate of ,1,000 per month per data
set (PGP-1, personal communication). This is in contrast to the
ICGC, for example, where only seven projects (as of October
2011) have been approved for access to the controlled data since
December 2010 (http://www.icgc.org/daco/approved-projects/),
i.e., ,0.00023 per month per data set, and another seven are
being currently revised (J. Jennings, personal communication).
Although it is expected that more projects will be approved by
ICGC in the future, this difference with open data is striking.
Furthermore, not only does accessing and downloading the data
entail a considerable effort for end users, but also making genomic
data available to the research community can be quite
cumbersome, requiring substantial paperwork. The whole process
is disproportionally onerous for small labs, which may not have the
proper experience or resources for the submission of one or two
The administrative efforts to access private genetic data exact a
real cost and create a drag on research efforts creating friction in
the depositing, accessing, and analyzing of data. With many
academics risk averse and cost conscious the time and effort often
necessary to access this data will cut down on potential research
Computational Approaches to Dealing with
Given how difficult it is to handle large amounts of private data,
one can imagine a number of computational approaches to ease
the burden. First, one can try to ‘‘slice’’ out some of the relevant
variants in a big data set, i.e., selectively releasing SNPs and other
genomic variants, such as small indels and larger structural
variations, that are proximal to a known locus of interest (e.g.,
related to a disease). Alternatively, more extensive filtering of
genomic variants may involve other genomic properties (such as
heterozygosity and allele frequency) and its immediate sequence
context (such as proximity of a recombination hotspot and the
local sequence conservation level). Furthermore, one may consider
to only release the summary statistics from genomic property
calculations over sliding windows across the genome, such as the
average allele frequency and number of variants. A final idea
involves building ‘‘synthetic’’ personal genomes from a pool of
individual genomes in a group. To be more specific, one may
permute the variants or variant blocks between individual
genomes, such that the representative variations of the entire
group are readily seen, but not those of any particular individual.
While the exact manipulation of the variation annotation file could
be done in a reversible and uniquely determined way, using a key
private to the researcher, persons without the key would not have
adequate information to recover the data.
However, one should keep in mind that although this reduces
the public exposure of the sequences, none of these data
manipulation methods fully de-identifies the test subjects. These
methods should rather be viewed as options to mask part of a
personal genome, preventing some aspect of detailed character-
ization. Nonetheless, even at this point, it is not sensible to
completely rule out the possibility of the sequencing data being
deciphered. Using sufficiently sophisticated statistical models given
the prevalence of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the human
genome, the sequencing data from a personal genome may be
decoded eventually from haplotypes in the human population to a
high accuracy by persons with specialized knowledge of population
genetics. A particularly famous example of this is the determina-
tion of Jim Watson’s apoE genotype. He explicitly did not want
this revealed in his personal genome sequencing because of its
implications related to mental disease. However, researchers
showed that the initial amount of sequence masked was not
sufficient to hide the key variant if one took into account LD .
Second, one can try to anonymize functional genomics data;
increasingly, the readout of many functional genomics experi-
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org3December 2011 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e1002278
ments is in the form of sequencing. Privacy concerns relate to
functional genomics data differently from genome-sequencing
data. Specifically, when the low-level sequencing data is released,
one can essentially recover the genomic variations in a similar
fashion as in genome-wide sequencing. Nonetheless, these
genomic variations are only limited to the corresponding
functionally annotated regions (,5% of the human genome).
Hence, naively, one may get the impression that genomic privacy
protection is less critical for functional genomics data. However, all
experiments on humans essentially give rise to variant information;
effectively, an RNA-Seq experiment is almost equivalent to exome
However, unlike genome sequence, the variants are not always
the key information revealed by an experiment.
In particular, if only the high-level data—such as the ChIP-seq
peak intervals and RNA-seq gene expression levels, are submitted,
the DNA-level genomic variations (i.e., SNPs) are, to a large
extent, masked. Therefore, the concerns for genomic privacy are
minimal. For example, RNA-seq expression values are almost
equivalent to expression microarray data, which have not posed
any privacy issues. Indeed, microarray data have been publicly
available for some time via repositories such as GEO  or
ArrayExpress . Given this, in some cases, it is possible to
reduce the impact of sequencing information via simple data
manipulation. For example, RNA-Seq experiments measure the
transcriptome of a population of cells . Typically, the main
goal of these investigations is the identification of differentially
expressed genes, isoforms, or exons between different conditions.
This type of analysis can be carried out without including explicit
sequence variants, thus greatly reducing the potential identifiable
information, although there will still be some identification issues.
Theoretically, the pattern of expression levels measured by a
sequencing experiment may still lead to the identification of the
individual. However, this possibility is also shared by gene
expression and exon microarrays that have been freely shared in
the past via public repositories. RSEQtools proposes Mapped
Read Format (MRF) as a practical realization of this. MRF is a
compact data format that can separate the alignment and genomic
‘‘signal’’ information from the actual sequences . This
separation has the advantage to effectively allow a fine-tuned
access control to the data, by making the alignment data publicly
available, whereas the sequences may be kept under restricted
access. It also has the advantage of providing compact data sets,
especially now with increasing sequence read lengths that can be
Another approach may become a popular archival format for
reducing the size of next-generation sequencing data is reference-
based compression and the associated CRAM format . This
format stores the position of a read on a reference and then the
variations in the read relative to the reference. If the read cannot
be mapped to the reference, one makes up a rough assembly on
the fly and then maps the read to this. This format can be readily
adapted to anonymize information in a similar fashion to MRF.
One simply just stores the first bit of information, the position that
the read maps onto the reference, and leaves off the remainder of
the information (the variants on the read relative to the reference
which constitutes sensitive information).
The approach taken by MRF for RNA-seq can be easily
adopted by other functional genomics experiments, such as ChIP-
seq. Here, the locations of the peaks typically constitute sufficient
data summaries for the downstream analysis. Again, separating the
sequences from the alignment has the advantage to create a two-
tier environment, one public and one private, that can satisfy both
the privacy requirements as well as the sharing of the data to the
Approaches to Future Data Management: No
Confidentiality, Banking Models, and Private
Many of the complexities of dealing with private and large-scale
information disproportionally burden small laboratories. They do
not have the staff to secure the computers, encrypt the data, and
deal with all the forms and approvals necessary that large genome
centers in big companies have. Then how can they profitably
engage in medical research using large-scale private data?
One extreme approach would be to have no privacy at all in
genomic data for medical research. That is, we would not make
any pretense in trying to protect genomic information and only
seek volunteers who would consent to have their information be
publicly available. This is an ethically honest but extreme
approach to consent .
It has been adopted by the PGP . The PGP has been so far
very successful with the number of the early individuals in the
project garnering a considerable amount of publicity and having
their sequences viewed quite a bit. However, it’s not clear that this
approach would scale to potentially millions of people who will be
having their genome sequenced. It is essentially asking the
sequenced individual to be a test pilot for scientific research,
risking their privacy to advance the frontier.
Another approach could be to learn from the legal and banking
sectors wherein privacy and confidentiality are protected while the
practitioners nevertheless manipulate and analyze large databases
of highly confidential personal and financial data. Furthermore,
private information is exchanged between many organizations
ranging from large companies to small law firms. In those cases,
incentives to keep clients, as well as governmental regulations with
stiff penalties and civil and criminal repercussions, help to prevent
breaches of customer privacy.
An aspect of the legal and financial model is accreditation and
licensure, which requires practitioners to show proficiency in their
craft and in the legal and social concerns. Licensing also creates
liability, creating real world repercussions, i.e., penalties and/or
forfeiture of the license and their ability to access the data, in the
event of a breach of responsibilities. Licensure could follow the
example of the legal profession, where local and national
organizations bear the responsibility of licensing, and wherein
national organizations can accept the credentials of those licensed
However, there are some key differences between the legal and
financial approach and that required by academia. There is no
incentive to publish and share information in the private world of
banking as there is in academia. Furthermore, most of the
individuals involved with private information are not student
trainees, but rather informed professionals.
A third potential solution might be a government-supported
cloud computer repository. There are a number of clear
advantages to cloud computing . It can provide a centralized
and relatively homogeneous interface for genomic researchers. It
can provide the computational power and memory to allow for the
manipulation of these large data sets off-site—something that
smaller labs or individual researchers may not otherwise have
access to. Further, by having the data centralized by a government
or large entity, economies of scale allow the necessary security and
precautions to protect private and/or proprietary data to be
universally employed. Whereas many labs without the financial or
technological wherewithal may have previously just posted their
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org4December 2011 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e1002278
results on a local server, the cloud potentially may be able to
provide universal protection to data at a standard heretofore
affordable only to large labs.
Instead of risking privacy every time a researcher downloads a
data set, analytical programs to access and analyze the data can be
uploaded to the cloud where the programs can not only analyze
the data, but can also be shared and improved upon by others.
Most importantly, what happens in the cloud, while nevertheless
staying in the cloud, cannot be hidden—all access to the data and
the nature of the access can be logged and reviewed to prevent
abuse of the data and breaches of privacy. Researchers will be
unable to just take data off the servers, and the massive size of most
files mean that data cannot simply be copied by hand; rather, the
cloud infrastructure will necessitate that a recordable event occurs
wherein a researcher downloads or possibly even views a file onto
their own system.
This logging system is necessary not only because of the
extremely unlikely event of malicious actions by researchers, but
more importantly, to prevent students, who may be unaware of the
greater repercussions of their actions, from accidentally and
innocuously breaching privacy and security, i.e., a naive but errant
Perl script that inadvertently sends private data onto the Internet.
Summary and Direction: Educating Researchers
about the New Reality
Clearly, with the advent of large amounts of personal genomic
data, bioinformatics is in for a change. It is inevitable that much of
the past. This is going to necessitate new approaches to anonymizing
data sets and providing secure computational environments. It will
also require us to educate a new generation of researchers to think
more carefully about personal genomics and privacy.
In an effort to inculcate young researchers regarding the
ramifications of genomic sciences, numerous universities have
recently implemented programs to provide some students—in the
extreme, the entire incoming freshman class—access to personal
genomic technologies. These efforts, however, raise pedagogical
and social concerns.
The underlying goal of each of these programs seems to be to
introduce and to acclimate young adults to what is likely to be a
common, prevalent, and relevant technology in the future.
However, these programs are also a double-edged sword. The
Facebook/Twitter generation, in particular, has an evolving
concept of personal privacy that may not be compatible with
how society currently perceives the nature of the information
provided to them by personal genomics.
Further, one of the most effective ways in these programs to
educate young people about genomics is to have them study their
own, their relatives’, and even their peers’ genomes. This is, of
course, what the students can most easily relate to. However, it is
also the type of information that has one of the greatest degrees of
privacy implications: there are concerns for the student’s own
privacy—in the extreme, students, desensitized to privacy
concerns, may post their genetic results publicly—and there are
additional concerns for the student’s extended families that share
much of their genetic information, and may or may not consent to
having their genetic predispositions aired publicly.
There are further real concerns that students, provided with
powerful genetic information (e.g., Alzheimer’s predispositions)
may fail to adequately protect it. Curious students are likely to seek
and search out this most intriguing data, instead of the more
pedestrian data regarding eye color or propensity to develop wet
earwax. Unfortunately, the most interesting data will always be the
data that requires the most protections.
Further, not withstanding privacy concerns, restrictions on
access to this powerfully pedagogical data may limit the usefulness
of the educational exercise or invite curious students to circumvent
what may be in many cases purposeful limitations on access.
Open access to research data, once a given in genomic research,
is becoming rarer, and privacy concerns regarding current and
future genomics research data present a further non-trivial
obstacle to data sharing; finding an optimal balance between
access for researchers and protection for patients’ privacy remains
elusive. Here, we have provided a survey of the current situation,
noting in particular how the large-scale data from next-generation
sequencing makes it especially hard to share data, exacerbating
privacy and open-data problems. We presented various compu-
tational strategies for dealing with the issue of genomic privacy,
and note how cloud computing potentially may allow access to the
data in a more controlled fashion than the current practice of
downloading and computing on large data sets, perhaps helping to
reverse the trend against open data.
Thank you to Jennifer Jennings and Brett Whitty at The International
Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and Jason Bobe at the Personal
Genome Project for their help on data statistics.
DG’s opinions expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily
represent, nor should they be imputed to represent, the opinion of his law
firm, any of its employees, or its clients.
Dov Greenbaum is licensed to practice in California and
before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Dov
has a JD from the University of California, Berkeley, and a
PhD in Genetics from Yale University.
Andrea Sboner was an Associate Research Scientist in
Computational Biology and Bioinformatics at Yale Univer-
sity with a main focus on the processing and analysis of
next-generation sequencing experiments. Currently, he is
an instructor at the Department of Pathology and
Laboratory Medicine and at the Institute for Computation-
al Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medical College.
Xinmeng Jasmine Mu is a doctoral student in Compu-
tational Biology and Bioinformatics at Yale University.
Mark Gerstein is the A. L. Williams Professor of
Biomedical Informatics at Yale University, where he co-
directs the Yale Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
Program. His laboratory uses computation to annotate
genome sequences, mine data on gene expression and
molecular networks, analyze protein families, and simulate
macromolecular structures. A former W. M. Keck Founda-
tion Distinguished Young Scholar, he received his PhD at
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org5 December 2011 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e1002278
References Download full-text
1. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, et al. (2000) The
protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28: 235.
2. National Center for Biotechnology Information (2011) National Center for
Biotechnology Information. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. Accessed
31 October 2011.
3. Lander ES (2011) Initial impact of the sequencing of the human genome. Nature
4. Greenbaum D (2003) Are we legislating away our scientific future? The database
debate. Duke L & Tech Rev 2003. pp 22–32.
5. Department of Health and Human Services (2001) Standards for privacy of
individually identifiable health information: final rule, 45 CFR 1160-164. 19. 64
Federal Register. 12 738. February 28, 2001.
6. Lin Z, Owen AB, Altman RB (2004) Genomic research and human subject
privacy. Science 305: 183.
7. Gibson G, Copenhaver GP (2010) Consent and internet-enabled human
genomics. PLoS Genet 6: e1000965. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000965.
8. Stephane M, Friedlin F, Brett S, Shuying S (2010) Automatic de-identification of
textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research.
BMC Med Res Methodol 10: 70.
9. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, Duggan D, Tembe W, et al. (2008)
Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex
mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet 4:
10. Barrett T, Troup DB, Wilhite SE, Ledoux P, Rudnev D, et al. (2009) NCBI
GEO: archive for high-throughput functional genomic data. Nucleic Acids Res
37(suppl 1): D885.
11. Parkinson H, Kapushesky M, Kolesnikov N, Rustici G, Shojatalab M, et al.
(2009) ArrayExpress update—from an archive of functional genomics experi-
ments to the atlas of gene expression. Nucleic Acids Res 37(suppl 1): D868.
12. Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Wheeler DL (2008)
GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res 36(suppl 1): D25.
13. Flicek P, Amode MR, Barrell D, Beal K, Brent S, et al. (2011) Ensembl 2011.
Nucleic Acids Res 39(suppl 1): D800.
14. Fujita PA, Rhead B, Zweig AS, Hinrichs AS, Karolchik D, et al. (2011) The
UCSC Genome Browser database: update 2011. Nucleic Acids Res 39(suppl 1):
15. Mailman MD, Feolo M, Jin Y, Kimura M, Tryka K, et al. (2007) The NCBI
dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nat Genet 39: 1181–1186.
16. International Cancer Genome Consortium (2011) International Cancer
Genome Consortium. Available: http://www.icgc.org/. Accessed 31 October
17. Davies K (2010) The $1,000 genome: the revolution in DNA sequencing and the
new era of personalized medicine. New York: Free Press.
18. Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M (2009) RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for
transcriptomics. Nature Rev. Genetics 10: 57–63.
19. Habegger L, Sboner A, Gianoulis TA, Rozowsky J, Agarwal A, et al. (2011)
RSEQtools: a modular framework to analyze RNA-Seq data using compact,
anonymized data summaries. Bioinformatics 27: 281.
20. Hsi-Yang Fritz M, Leinonen R, Cochrane G, Birney E (2011) Efficient storage of
high throughput DNA sequencing data using reference-based compression.
Genome research 21: 734.
21. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM (2008) From genetic
privacy to open consent. Nature Rev. Genetics 9: 406–411.
22. Church GM (2005) The personal genome project. Molecular Systems Biology
23. Schatz MC, Langmead B, Salzberg SL (2010) Cloud computing and the DNA
data race. Nature Biotech 28: 691.
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org6 December 2011 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e1002278