Search

This article outlines the protocol for a prospective study for virtual deliberative public engagement on heritable genome editing in humans. The study intends to create a platform for a diverse group of 25-30 South Africans to engage with a facilitator and each other on 15 policy questions regarding heritable genome editing, with a focus on: a) the prevention of heritable genetic conditions; b) editing for immunity; and c) editing for enhancement. The aim is to understand the views on these issues so as to inform further research and policy, and to analyse the process and effect of deliberation on opinion. Participants will be expected to study the provided resource materials and pass the entrance exam-aligning with the protocols of the Harvard Personal Genome Project. In this way, the commitment, openness and basic knowledge of the candidates will be tested to ascertain whether they are suitable participants for the deliberative engagement., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

This communication is regarding the recent editing of the genome of the human embryo with CRISPR/Cas9 which generated a debate amongst the biological scientists around the world. Editing human germline genes may act as godsend in some serious genetic and other disorders as the genes related to these disorders can be replaced effectively. The scientists are in dilemma whether the human germline gene modification is a boon or bane for the human society. Though editing human germline genes may be an answer to many serious genetic disorders however; it may have unpredictable effects on future generations. The ethical issues regarding the germline editing need further discussion which may have implications on human race and on-going human evolution. Thus, the researchers need to be doubly cautious and some stringent regulations should be framed regarding the various aspects of germ line gene modifications and any potential conflict with nature for future outcome.

Single-cell analysis of heterogeneity has become the cutting-edge technology for profound understandings of relationships between cell populations. At present, common methods used in single cellular genomic research are mainly microfluidic technologies (Fluidigm) or based on microwells, both requiring a uniform size of cells at the entrance. However, the size of cells in specific tissues can vary from type to type. To address this issue, we need to establish a method to identify genomic features of individual cells of different sizes. In this paper, we developed a robust method in the analysis of single cellular genomic mutations among gastric tissues. Briefly, the single gastric gland was isolated from the whole tissue, and further enzymatically digested into single cells of various sizes by trypsin. These single cells were then spread on the polyethylene naphthalene slides and selected by the laser microdissection method. Whole genome amplification (WGA) and capillary electrophoresis were performed subsequently to detect single cell microsatellite. This method enabled us to detect the existence of microsatellite instability (MSI) of each single cell within the intestinal metaplasia, and to carry out a flexible and fine analysis of single cells with different sizes in tissues and glands. This reliable and practical method is well performed in both low and high-throughput genome analysis when combined with cell labeling methods, thus providing a novel and highly flexible way to study tissue heterogeneity on the single cell scale.

Purpose: Eliciting and understanding patient and research participant preferences regarding return of secondary test results are key aspects of genomic medicine. A valid instrument should be easily understood without extensive pretest counseling while still faithfully eliciting patients' preferences., Methods: We conducted focus groups with 110 adults to understand patient perspectives on secondary genomic findings and the role that preferences should play. We then developed and refined a draft instrument and used it to elicit preferences from parents participating in a genomic sequencing study in children with intellectual disabilities., Results: Patients preferred filtering of secondary genomic results to avoid information overload and to avoid learning what the future holds, among other reasons. Patients preferred to make autonomous choices about which categories of results to receive and to have their choices applied automatically before results are returned to them and their clinicians. The Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results (PIGSR) is designed to be completed by patients or research participants without assistance and to guide bioinformatic analysis of genomic raw data. Most participants wanted to receive all secondary results, but a significant minority indicated other preferences., Conclusions: Our novel instrument-PIGSR-should be useful in a wide variety of clinical and research settings.Genet Med 19 3, 337-344.

Objective: We explore the stability of parental attitudes to the ethical issues raised by the return of genomic research results., Methods: A 19-item questionnaire was mailed to participants in a large genome research consortium 18 months following a baseline survey. We describe the stability of parental attitudes to (a) sharing of genomic research results, (b) endorsement of children in genomic research, (c) responsibilities of researchers, and (d) responsibilities to extended family. We also explore their experience in receiving results., Results: Of 170 original participants, 154 (91%) responded. Most participants expressed positive rights to receive incidental genomic research findings (85%), including when ameliorative therapy was unknown (85%). Only 3% found it acceptable to delegate the decision to return results to an independent committee. Researchers, either with a parent (42%) or physician (17%), were felt to be responsible to convey research results to children when they reach adulthood. Most participants (74%) indicated that results should be shared with potentially affected extended family. These results are very similar to those of the baseline survey. All participants who received genomic results would do so again and reported actions similar to their expressed attitudes., Conclusions: The opinions of parents regarding genomic research remain stable over time. Guidelines on the return of results should incorporate these findings., (© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.)