Does Each Individaul Need to Register Separately on Gedmatch to Upload Their Results?

• Journal List
• eLife
• PMC6946563

The challenges of maintaining genetic privacy

Shai Carmi

Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Received 2019 Dec 23; Accepted 2019 Dec 23.

Abstract

Two studies advise that a determined adversary may be able to obtain genetic information without permission from some genealogy databases.

Inquiry organism: Human

Related research article Border Md, Coop Thousand. 2020. Attacks on genetic privacy via uploads to genealogical databases. eLife 9:e51810. doi: x.7554/eLife.51810

The direct-to-consumer genetic testing manufacture has grown rapidly in the past few years, to the extent that the companies offering such tests now hold a big proportion of all the human genetic data ever generated (Regalado, 2019). A common reason why someone might undergo genetic testing is to observe relatives, either within the database of the visitor that performed the test, or via one of a number of third-political party services that permit users to upload genomes generated by other labs. Two new studies demonstrate that it may exist possible for a user to obtain genomic data without permission from some databases (Edge and Coop, 2020; Ney et al., 2020).

In full general, when a user uploads their genome to a third-party service, the service searches its database for genomes that accept segments that are identical or nearly identical to segments of the user'southward genome. The number of such identical-by-state (IBS) segments, and the length of these segments, both increase with the closeness of the relationship betwixt the user and the person (or persons) in the database. The minimum length of a segment is typically around a few millions of base pairs.

To encounter how a user could admission data they should not be able to access, suppose that Alice uploads her genome and finds that she is related to Bob. If the testing service gives Alice details almost the IBS segments she shares with Bob (such every bit the location of these segments in the genome), and so Alice will have obtained a certain amount of genomic data nearly Bob. Now, two independent groups – Michael Edge and Graham Coop of the University of California, Davis writing in eLife (Edge and Coop, 2020), and Peter Ney, Luis Ceze, and Tadayoshi Kohno of the University of Washington in work to be presented at the NDSS symposium in San Diego in Feb (Ney et al., 2020) – written report how services that requite users certain details about IBS segments could be subject to attacks that allow an 'adversary' to obtain potentially significant amounts of genomic information that they should not have permission to admission (Edge and Coop, 2020; Ney et al., 2020).

The key insight is that an adversary does non accept to upload their own genome, and that they can instead upload multiple genomes, including genomes that are in the public domain. This approach is called 'IBS tiling'. For each IBS segment that is reported, the adversary gains a pocket-size amount of genetic data nearly a 'target' genome in the database. However, by uploading a large number of genomes, it is possible to obtain large amounts of genetic information (Figure 1A). Using simulations, Edge and Coop showed that with about 900 public genomes from the 1000 Genomes Projection, IBS tiling is expected to reveal near 60% of the genome of a European target. A related approach adult by Edge and Coop, named 'IBS probing', allows the adversary to learn if the target'south genome contains a specific affliction allele (Larkin, 2017;Figure 1B).

IBS tiling and IBS probing.

(A) In IBS tiling a user (called the 'adversary') uploads multiple public genomes (shown in yellow) to a DNA matching service in order to determine the sequence of a target genome (pale blue) that is already present in the service'southward database. In the figure, uploading the first genome yields iii IBS segments (a,b,c; pale green), uploading the second genome yields two (d,e), and uploading the third genome too yields two (f,g). IBS tiling only works if the matching service reports matching IBS segments and their locations between the public genomes and the target genome (see text). The amount of information obtained by the adversary increases with the number of public genomes uploaded to the service. (B) In IBS probing, the antagonist uploads a 'probe' genome that belongs to a person who is known to bear an of import mutation (such equally a mutation that causes a affliction; cerise star). If the target genome contains the aforementioned mutation, the Dna matching service will (under certain weather condition) study a matching IBS segment, and the antagonist will know that the target as well has this mutation in their genome. In general, IBS probing is expected to work for mutations that are relatively immature (that is, less than about 500–1000 years one-time).

The adventure of IBS tiling and IBS probing is limited in services that only written report IBS segments to users who are closely related. Thus, equally genomes from public databases volition only rarely be close relatives of the target, this will limit the effective number of genomes available for tiling. Yet, IBS tiling could yield significant amounts of information on targets from founder populations in which the rate of genomic sharing is high, such as Ashkenazi Jews or Finns (Carmi et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2018). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies and third-party services could eliminate this risk by not showing users where IBS segments are located within the genome.

The about popular third-political party service, GEDmatch, has over a one thousand thousand users, and was recently acquired by the forensics genomics visitor Verogen (Husbands, 2019). GEDmatch puts very few restrictions on users and is vulnerable to IBS tiling. GEDmatch is routinely used by police force forces to investigate crime (Erlich et al., 2018; Kennett, 2019), though (as of recently) they can only search the genomes of users who take opted in to give police-enforcement agencies access to their genetic information.

When comparison genomes, GEDmatch uses a simple algorithm, reporting a region of the genome as an IBS segment and so long as the user and the target practice non take conflicting homozygous genotypes: that is, if the user genome is, say, AA at a given site, GEDmatch will return an IBS segment if the target is AA or AB at that site, but not if the target is BB (subject to the segments being longer than a certain minimum length, as described in a higher place). GEDmatch also provides users with an prototype, indicating, for each site in the genome, whether the genotypes of the user and the target fully lucifer, partly friction match, or do non match.

Ney et al. recently demonstrated that it is possible to extract nearly the entire genome of an individual from GEDmatch by uploading an artificial almost-all-heterozygote genome and examining the resulting IBS segments (which was also shown past Edge and Coop), or by uploading an all-homozygote genome and examining the resulting images. However, these techniques depend crucially on the specifics of the genome comparison methods used by GEDmatch, and could go obsolete if these methods change, or if users are prohibited from uploading artificial or manipulated genomes.

The apply of digital signatures could also prevent adversaries from uploading genomes they have downloaded from public resources or have generated computationally (Erlich et al., 2018). This would involve directly-to-consumer genetic testing labs digitally signing their genome files earlier users tin can download them, and third-political party services but returning data about IBS segments to a user if the genome uploaded by the user has a digital signature from an canonical lab.

The applied consequences of an adversary getting admission to your genetic information are debatable. For example, some researchers question the potential usefulness of methods that predict the adventure of affliction based on polygenic scores (Wald and Old, 2019), especially for non-European populations (Martin et al., 2019). However, others contend for a clinical utility of polygenic adventure scores (Lambert et al., 2019). As well, there are contrasting views on the usefulness of information about mutations in protein-coding regions. For example, some debate that nearly coding mutations carried past an private are hard to interpret, even past physicians (Hoffman-Andrews, 2017). However, databases such as ClinVar let users to translate the pathogenicity of many mutations, and some mutations can be strong risk factors for diseases such as Alzheimer'southward or breast cancer, which may affect insurance decisions.

Even so, ane needs to remember that DNA is immutable, and thus, any loss of privacy cannot exist reversed. Moreover, any loss of privacy tin go beyond the private and extend to their relatives. Further, if an entire large US-based database was compromised, an adversary would be able to identify most Usa individuals, even those not in the database (Erlich et al., 2018). Therefore, I urge all stakeholders to pay attention to the work of these two groups and attempt to keep genetic information secure.

Biography

•

Shai Carmi is in the Braun School of Public Wellness and Customs Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Competing interests

Paid consultant to MyHeritage, a Dna testing service.

References

• Carmi Due south, Hui KY, Kochav E, Liu 10, Xue J, Grady F, Guha S, Upadhyay K, Ben-Avraham D, Mukherjee Due south, Bowen BM, Thomas T, Vijai J, Cruts M, Froyen M, Lambrechts D, Plaisance Southward, Van Broeckhoven C, Van Damme P, Van Marck H, Barzilai N, Darvasi A, Offit K, Bressman Southward, Ozelius LJ, Peter I, Cho JH, Ostrer H, Atzmon G, Clark LN, Lencz T, Pe'er I. Sequencing an Ashkenazi reference panel supports population-targeted personal genomics and illuminates Jewish and European origins. Nature Communications. 2014;5:4835. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5835. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Border Doc, Coop G. Attacks on genetic privacy via uploads to genealogical databases. eLife. 2020;9:e51810. doi: 10.7554/eLife.51810. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Erlich Y, Shor T, Pe'er I, Carmi S. Identity inference of genomic information using long-range familial searches. Science. 2018;362:690–694. doi: 10.1126/scientific discipline.aau4832. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hoffman-Andrews Fifty. The known unknown: the challenges of genetic variants of uncertain significance in clinical practise. Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2017;4:648–657. doi: ten.1093/jlb/lsx038. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Husbands J. GEDmatch partners with genomics firm. [December 16, 2019];2019 https://verogen.com/gedmatch-partners-with-genomics-firm/
• Kennett D. Using genetic genealogy databases in missing persons cases and to develop suspect leads in trigger-happy crimes. Forensic Science International. 2019;301:107–117. doi: x.1016/j.forsciint.2019.05.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lambert SA, Abraham One thousand, Inouye M. Towards clinical utility of polygenic risk scores. Human being Molecular Genetics. 2019;28:R133–R142. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddz187. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Larkin L. Cystic fibrosis: a case written report in genetic privacy. [December 16, 2019]; The DNA Geek. 2017 https://thednageek.com/cystic-fibrosis-a-case-study-in-genetic-privacy/
• Martin AR, Karczewski KJ, Kerminen S, Kurki MI, Sarin AP, Artomov M, Eriksson JG, Esko T, Genovese Thousand, Havulinna AS, Kaprio J, Konradi A, Korányi Fifty, Kostareva A, Männikkö M, Metspalu A, Perola M, Prasad RB, Raitakari O, Rotar O, Salomaa 5, Groop L, Palotie A, Neale BM, Ripatti S, Pirinen 1000, Daly MJ. Haplotype sharing provides insights into fine-scale population history and disease in Finland. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2018;102:760–775. doi: ten.1016/j.ajhg.2018.03.003. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Martin AR, Kanai One thousand, Kamatani Y, Okada Y, Neale BM, Daly MJ. Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities. Nature Genetics. 2019;51:584–591. doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0379-x. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ney P, Ceze L, Kohno T. Genotype extraction and false relative attacks: security risks to third-political party genetic genealogy services across identity inference. [December 16, 2019]; Network and Distributed Organisation Security Symposium (NDSS) (San Diego, US) 2020 https://dnasec.cs.washington.edu/genetic-genealogy/ney_ndss.pdf
• Regalado A. More than 26 million people take taken an at-home ancestry test. [December 16, 2019]; MIT Technology Review. 2019 https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612880/more-than-26-million-people-have-taken-an-calm-ancestry-examination/
• Wald NJ, Old R. The illusion of polygenic disease risk prediction. Genetics in Medicine. 2019;21:1705–1707. doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0418-v. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

---

Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

---

coombsgeou1979.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6946563/

Share this post