Re-analysis of genetic risks for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from 23andMe data finds few remain - Bedford, Felice L.; Tzovaras, Bastian Greshake (medRxiv, 2020)
It is tempting to mine the abundance of DNA data that is now available from direct-to-consumer genetic tests but this approach also has its pitfalls A recent study put forth a list of 50 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that predispose to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), a potentially major advance in understanding this still mysterious condition. However, only the patient cohort data came from a commercial company (23andMe) while the control was from a genetic database. The extent to which 23andMe data agree with genetic reference databases is unknown. We reanalyzed the 50 purported CFS SNPs by comparing to control data specifically from 23andMe which are available through public platform OpenSNP. In addition, large high-quality database ALFA was used as an additional control. The analysis lead to dramatic change with the top of the leaderboard for CFS risk reduced and reversed from an astronomical 129,000 times to 0.8. Errors were found both within 23andMe data and the original study-reported Kaviar database control. Only 3 of 50 SNPs survived initial study criterion of at least twice as prevalent in patients, EFCAB4B, involved in calcium ion channel activation, LINC01171, and MORN2 genes. We conclude that the reported top-50 deleterious polymorphisms for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome were more likely the top-50 errors in the 23andMe and Kaviar databases. In general, however, correlation of 23andMe control with ALFA was a respectable 0.93, suggesting an overall usefulness of 23andMe results for research purposes but only if caution is taken with chips and SNPs.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding received for conduction of the study. If there is an open-access charge upon publication, funding may be sought after the fact for publication charges.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Exempted because no interaction or requests made of participants or new consenting required.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data referred to is provided either within the manuscript itself or supplementary materials with the manuscript.