Study on genetics of longevity comes under scrutiny

July 10, 2010 |11:35 | Gossips By : Team X

A study published in the prestigious journal Science earlier this month suggesting that genes may hold a key for living to be 100 or older has since come under criticism from experts in the field of genetics. The study, led by Paola Sebastiani and Dr. Thomas Perls at the Boston University School of Public Health and School of Medicine, respectively, used genetic analysis to identify 150 gene variants that researchers used to predict whether people would live to be centenarians with 77% accuracy.

The findings were widely reported — by TIME, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and elsewhere — as yielding clues to the secrets of long life, and potentially paving the way for genetic tests for longevity. Yet, skepticism from colleagues in the field of genetics has since given way to more vocal criticism of the study, the editorial process that led to its publication, and the media environment that put it in the headlines.

After the paper was published, some fellow genetics researchers began scratching their heads — as they told Newsweek at the time, the small sample size and varying technologies used to analyze the DNA could have undermined the results, (which, for some, were surprising to the point of creating incredulity), but they couldn't put a finger on exactly what the study flaw might be. But then, drawing on the idea that use of different types of technology, or specifically different DNA-analysis chips, could sully the data, Kári Stefánsson, a genetics researcher from Iceland who founded deCode Genetics, took a closer look at which specific chips had been used for the study. He homed in on one known as the 610-Quad, which he has experience with. As Mary Carmichael first wrote for Newsweek:

Permalink | 0 Comments