Sharp, Richard R

Purpose The Mayo Clinic Biobank was established to provide a large group of patients from which comparison groups (ie, controls) could be selected for case–control studies, to create a prospective cohort with sufficient power for common outcomes and to support electronic health record (EHR) studies. Participants A total of 56 862 participants enrolled (21% response rate) into the Mayo Clinic Biobank from Rochester, Minnesota (77%, n=43 836), Jacksonville, Florida (18%, n=10 368) and La Crosse, Wisconsin (5%, n=2658). Participants were all Mayo Clinic patients, 18 years of age or older and US residents. Findings to date Overall, 43% of participants were 65 years of age or older and female participants were more frequent (59%) than males at all sites. Most participants resided in the Upper Midwest regions of the USA (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois or Wisconsin), Florida or Georgia. Self-reported race among Biobank participants was 90% white. Here we provide examples of the types of studies that have successfully utilised the resource, including (1) investigations of the population itself, (2) provision of controls for case–control studies, (3) genotype-driven research, (4) EHR-based research and (5) prospective recruitment to other studies. Over 270 projects have been approved to date to access Biobank data and/or samples; over 200 000 sample aliquots have been approved for distribution. Future plans The data and samples in the Mayo Clinic Biobank can be used for various types of epidemiological and clinical studies, especially in the setting of case–control studies for which the Biobank samples serve as control samples. We are planning cohort studies with additional follow-up and acquisition of genetic information on a large scale.

Abstract The metabolome is a system of small biomolecules (metabolites) and a direct result of human bioculture. Consequently, metabolomics is well poised to impact anthropological and biomedical research for the foreseeable future. Overall, we provide a perspective on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of metabolomics, which we argue are often more alarming than those of genomics. Given the current mechanisms to fund research, ELSI beyond human DNA is stifled and in need of considerable attention.

Introduction: Because apolipoprotein L1 ( APOL1) risk variants may contribute to live donors’ kidney failure postdonation, professional guidelines suggest informing potential donors with African ancestry about the availability of APOL1 genotyping. This study assessed African American (AA) donors’ perceptions of APOL1 genetic testing and how APOL1 may affect ethnic identity. Methods/Approach: Four focus groups were conducted with AA donors about their decision-making for and perceptions of APOL1 genetic testing and donation to inform a new culturally targeted educational brochure on APOL1 genetic testing. Qualitative data were analyzed by thematic analysis. Findings: Seventeen donors participated (47% participation rate). Four major themes emerged. (1) In hypothetical scenarios, most participants would have undergone APOL1 testing during donor evaluation to make a more informed decision, but many would have still donated. (2) Participants desired information about how having 2 APOL1 risk variants affects the donor’s and the recipient’s health. (3) Participants referred to diversity of genetic ancestry and cultural constructions of racial/ethnic identity to question the population at risk for APOL1 risk variants and recommended that all potential donors undergo genetic testing and receive education about APOL1. (4) Participants worried that out-of-pocket costs would deter APOL1 testing and that APOL1 could become a preexisting condition and discriminate against AAs. Discussion: Our findings suggest that AA donors desire APOL1 testing to foster informed consent. Transplant clinicians should be aware of these responses to APOL1 testing and be sensitive to historical issues of distrust and discrimination.

The application of gene editing technologies to prevent or mitigate genetic disease in humans is considered one of its most promising applications. However, as the technology advances, it is imperative to understand the views of the broader public on how it should be used. We conducted focus groups to understand public views on the ethical permissibility and governance of gene editing technologies in humans. A total of 50 urban and semirural residents in the upper Midwest took part in six focus groups. Participants expressed multiple concerns about nonmedical uses of gene editing and its potential for unknown harms to human health, and were divided as to whether the individual patient or “medical experts” should be charged with overseeing the scope of its application. As potential stakeholders, the perspectives from the general public are critical to assess as genome editing technologies advance toward the clinic.

Background: DNA biobanks frequently obtain broad permissions from sample donors, who agree to allow their biospecimens to be used for a variety of future purposes. A limitation of this approach is that it may not be possible to discuss or anticipate all potential uses of biospecimens at the time patient consent is obtained. We surveyed biobank participants to clarify their views regarding the need to be informed about research involving whole genome sequencing (WGS). Methods: We invited 1200 participants in the Mayo Clinic Biobank to complete a survey inquiring about their support for WGS; their interest in being recontacted before WGS of their biospecimens; whether they would consent to WGS if asked; and the acceptability of proceeding with WGS if sample donors could not be reached. Results: Six hundred eighty-seven biobank participants returned completed surveys (57% response). More than 96% of biobank participants were supportive of WGS and would give permission for WGS of their sample, if asked. Nonetheless, 61% of biobank participants felt they should be recontacted before WGS was done. Participants were divided regarding the permissibility of conducting WGS if efforts to recontact sample donors were unsuccessful. Discussion: Our findings highlight a potential discrepancy between the broad permissions granted by biobank participants at the time they donated biospecimens and their views about the application of WGS to their samples. Biobank participants appear to value the ability to confirm their commitment to genetic research when the studies in question involve WGS, a technological capacity they may not have anticipated at the time they donated their biospecimens. Efforts to reevaluate biobank participants' views about the acceptability of new technologies may help to ensure alignment of participants' current beliefs and research applications that would have been difficult to anticipate at the time biospecimens were collected.

Efforts to characterize stakeholder attitudes about the implementation of genomic medicine would benefit from a validated instrument for measuring public views of the potential benefits and harms of genomic technologies, which would facilitate comparison across populations and clinical settings. We sought to develop a scale to evaluate attitudes about the future of genomic medicine. We developed a 21‐item scale that examined the likelihood of various outcomes of genomic medicine. The scale was administered to participants in a genomic sequencing study. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted and bivariate correlations were calculated. The genomic orientation (GO) scale was completed by 2895 participants. A two‐factor structure was identified, corresponding to an optimism subscale (16 items, α = 0.89) and a pessimism subscale (5 items, α = 0.63). Genomic optimism was positively associated with a perceived value of genetic test results, higher health literacy, and decreased decisional conflict about participation in a genomic research study. Genomic pessimism was associated with concerns about genetic testing, lower health literacy, and increased decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study. The GO scale is a promising tool for measuring both positive and negative views regarding the future of genomic medicine and deserves further validation.