From Spit to SNPs: Decoding My DNA

A few years ago I spit a small amount (about two tablespoons) of my saliva into a specimen collection tube provided in a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing kit that I ordered through My goal was to learn about my ancestors’ through their genealogical beginnings and follow a familial chain of genetic links from generation to generation. Initially, I was disappointed with my scant results and what to me were already obvious findings. That is, that 77 percent of my ancestors originally hailed from Great Britain and Ireland–something I already had discerned from handed down family history and my own 35+ years of genealogical research looking back and identifying family branches across many generations of ancestors. Next came’s sharing of likely genetic family matches through their own standards for confidence ratings based upon thousands of DNA tests purchased. As the growing number of persons getting tested grew, genetic scientists were busy decoding DNA into SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), which occur normally throughout a person’s DNA. In fact, they occur once in every 300 nucleotides on average, which means there are roughly 10 million SNPs in the human genome.

Recent and rapid scientific, forensic, and technological advances in DNA analysis and the increased understanding and use of these DNA studies has brought forth even more relevant and interesting information about me and my family that goes beyond the former traditional genealogical links to my past.  In fact, studying these SNPs that make up genetic differences has proven to be very important to broadening my understanding of our family’s health issues. These studies also have helped medical geneticists discover how SNPs can help predict individual’s responses to certain drugs, susceptibility to environmental factors such as toxins, and risks of our developing particular diseases. SNPs also can be used to track the inheritance of disease genes within families.  Along this short but fast-paced trek into DNA I have been given new proof of more familial relationships than I had ever been unaware of and have discovered some family members that I hadn’t seen or heard from in years.

Before these new DNA discoveries, when visiting doctors or discussing family health conditions among others, I relied upon personal histories and documentation of conditions, diseases, and  causes of death.  Now, moving forward I can potentially use these new genomic analysis results to look at calculations of risks for genetic health conditions and potentials to increase my quality of life and have a clearer understanding of my inherited conditions and propensities to specific diseases.

So, a few days ago, I simply Googled “advanced analysis of genetic data,” which led me to:  Next, I attached my DNA test results from that I received a couple of years back to their form and emailed them.  Just two days later, free of charge, I received a return email that gave me a web site address so I could download my personal imputed genome analysis file.  They also provided their web site address to modules that would help me explore specific findings of my genome analysis.  Absolutely interesting and amazing data!

On impute’s site appears a GWAS (genome-wide association study) Calculator module, among other modules.  The GWAS module focuses on associations between SNPs and traits like major human diseases. By just entering my assigned unique genome ID, I was able to see if any variant within my SNPs was associated with a trait; in this instance: Acne. The results showed 13 SNPs in my genome (from Navarini AA et al (PMID 24927181), which were reported to be associated with severe Acne.  And, the narrative included a genetic risk score for this trait that “was higher than 36% of the general population. This is a fairly average score.”  The chart below shows 5 of the 13 SNPs examples present in my DNA that present a risk for severe Acne.  I filtered the SNP-score column (fifth column) to display in descending order so you could see my first four SNP scores and reported genes (last column) that resulted in this risk for Acne. Note the fifth row (and, similarly, the remaining 8 rows not shown) indicated a “0” SNP-score.  This is the kind of presentation given throughout this module to describe my risks among about hundred traits provided in the GWAS calculator.

Looking more closely at my GWAS Calculator and appearing before my eyes were confirmations of the presence of specific diseases that exist(ed) among various family members and the higher risk percentages of my having these same diseases. For example, I have a 76 percent higher than the general population risk of being within the Autism spectrum disorder, adhd, bipolar, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia–some family members have suffered from some of these maladies, but I can’t say that I have personally; a 52% higher than the general population risk of having Cardiovascular Disease; an 82% higher than average risk of food addictions; a 99% higher than average risk of having freckles (if you know me, you know I do or did); then there were the risks of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma and allergies, restless leg syndrome, and hip osteoarthritis (75% higher risk than the general population–all me! And the list continued.

BUT . . . Just how much of who we are, our strengths, capabilities, and limitations is determined by our DNA and genetics?

The newest studies of DNA suggest that both genetic and environmental factors play a role in who I am, what I look like, my singularities or uniqueness, and my biological, mental, intellectual and physical conditions and capabilities.  Studies suggest that multiple genes are involved, so our inheritance patterns are not straightforward. For example:

  • A person’s fingerprints are unique as you know and are based on the patterns of skin ridges (called dermatoglyphs) on the pads of the fingers. Dermatoglyphs develop before birth and stay the same throughout life. The ridges begin to develop during the third month of fetal development, and they are fully formed by the sixth.The basic size, shape, and spacing of dermatoglyphs seem to be influenced by genetic factors. Studies suggest that multiple genes are involved, so an inheritance pattern is not straightforward.
  •  A child’s eye color often can be predicted by the eye colors of his or her parents and other relatives.   In fact, both my parents and my siblings have blue eyes; my grandparents had blue eyes; and most of my aunts, uncles, and cousins (direct relatives) have blue eyes.   Yet, genetic variations sometimes produce unexpected results.  There are several disorders that can affect the color of our eyes.  One of these examples is ocular albinism characterized by severely reduced pigmentation of the iris.  This causes very light-colored eyes and significant problems with vision.
  • Another condition called oculocutaneous albinism affects the pigmentation of the skin and hair in addition to our eyes. Both ocular albinism and oculocutaneous albinism result from mutations in genes involved in the production and storage of melanin.
  • Hand preference is the tendency to be more skilled and comfortable using one hand instead of the other for tasks such as writing or throwing a ball. It was initially thought that a single gene controlled handedness. However, more recent studies suggest that multiple genes, perhaps up to 40, contribute to this trait. Although the percentage varies by culture, in Western countries 85 to 90 percent of people are right-handed and 10 to 15 percent of people are left-handed and then there are those who have this uncommon trait and are known to be ambidextrous.  They interchange hand preferences depending upon a task.  All the people in my family are right-handed–except for me!  I may have been right-handed at birth, but when I was 18 months old I received second and third degree burns all over my body from a spill of hot bacon grease.  The only part of me that wasn’t bandaged for months on end was my left hand.  I guess like other creatures, I adapted to my situation.  Or, just maybe my left-hand preference is related to differences between my right and left halves (hemispheres) of my brain. Our right hemisphere controls movement on the left sides of our body, while the left hemisphere controls movement on the right sides of our body.  These same studies on hand preference suggest that at least some of these genes help determine the overall right-left asymmetry of the body starting at our earliest stages of development.
    • For example, the PCSK6 gene has been associated with an increased likelihood of being right-handed in people with the psychiatric disorder schizophrenia. Another gene, LRRTM1, has been associated with an increased chance of being left-handed in people with dyslexia (a condition caused by a defect in the brain’s processing of graphic symbols and causes difficulty with reading and spelling).

Is the probability of having twins determined by genetics?

The likelihood of conceiving twins is a complex trait. It is probably affected by multiple
genetic and environmental factors, depending on the type of twins. The two types
of twins are classified as identical and fraternal.  My genealogical research shows twins and even triplets go back generations on both my paternal and maternal sides of my family.  My maternal great-grandmother had three sets of twins among the 13 children she birthed –extremely rare and perhaps unprecedented.  And, yes, I am happy to say that our grandson is a fantastic father of 5-year-old twins – a girl and a boy.

So, did I get my blue eyes and freckles from my mother or my dad? Where did I get my fearless personality and the absence of a talent for singing, as much as I love to sing? Did my intellect come from my mom’s two X chromosomes, or was it predetermined by my genes? It’s still not clear to me how many of my physical characteristics are purely hereditary, and my genetic waters get even murkier when it comes to nature vs. nurture factors like behavior, intelligence, and personality. This argument has never really been won.  So, let’s leave it at this:  we do not yet know how much of what we are is determined by our DNA and how much is contributed by our life experiences. But we do know that DNA and life experiences each plays a part.


…I’ve Got the Music In Me, and Oh How it Moves Me: Part 2


I know I wrote in Part 1 of this blog topic that I would focus on my family’s talents in Part 2.  As research would have it, there’s always more that we can learn along the way.  And, as I am known for never short cutting a project, I just couldn’t move forward without some additional background that still begs the question; “Does talent come more from nature, nurture, environment, self initiative and/or persistence and perseverence?”  While Part 2 may be a little dalliance from our focus on musicality–gifts from God versus innate talents within family genetics, I believe you will find this extra piece of information from Douglas Eby’s article worth “ponderfoddering.”  So,  with that said, keep tuned for a Part 3 to follow on under the topic “I’ve Got the Music In Me…

February 27, 2010, by Douglas Eby:

“Talent will out.” If that old aphorism were really true, those with the highest potential to make the world better would inevitably have the opportunities and power to provide a constant supply of art masterpieces, to lead medical, political and business organizations, or otherwise realize their advanced potentials.

What keeps so many high potential people from realizing their abilities?

Jeffery Combs, author of the article More Heart Than Talent (and related book), thinks talent “is one of the most overrated attributes when evaluating what is required to be successful.

“The world is filled with talented people, yet why is it that so few people live and achieve their dreams?”

He goes on to emphasize the need to overcome fear and take risks.

Like the challenges faced by film directors such as Kathryn Bigelow, pictured here directing a scene from ‘The Hurt Locker.’


“Heart is the magic,” Combs continues, “the juice, the stuff, fifth gear, the overdrive that great achievers in life tap into when challenges and obstacles appear.

“Heart is making a conscious choice to live an exceptional life rather than an average one. …

“Virtually everyone has raw, untapped talent. The problem is that most people never get out of their talent. Instead, they hide behind it, too afraid to take risks, to be vulnerable, and most of all, to risk not being perfect.”

Other personal development leaders have expressed helpful perspectives on making talent actualized, not just potential.

Self-limiting beliefs

In his article Overcoming Self-Limiting Beliefs, Brian Tracy writes about “the worst beliefs you can have” – self-limiting beliefs. “These exist whenever you believe yourself to be limited in some way.

“For example, you may think yourself to be less talented or capable than others. You may think that others are superior to you in some way. You may have fallen into the common trap of selling yourself short and settling for far less than you are truly capable of.

“These self-limiting beliefs act like brakes on your potential. They hold you back. They generate the two greatest enemies of personal success – doubt and fear. They paralyze you and cause you to hesitate to take the intelligent risks that are necessary for you to fulfill your true potential.”

Business philosopher Jim Rohn has declared “Everything we would ever need to become rich and powerful and sophisticated is within our reach. The major reason that so few take advantage of all that we have is simply neglect.

“Neglect is like an infection. Left unchecked it will spread throughout our entire system of disciplines and eventually lead to a complete breakdown of a potentially joy-filled and prosperous human life.”

[From his article Success is Easy, but So is Neglect. Also see more Jim Rohn articles.]

Transforming and action

Marcel ProustAs writer Marcel Proust saw it (in his book In Search of Lost Time), “Genius, and even great talent, springs less from seeds of intellect and social refinement superior to those of other people than from the faculty of transforming and transposing them….

“Those who produce works of genius are not those who live in the most delicate atmosphere, whose conversation is the most brilliant or their culture the most extensive… but those who have had the power, ceasing suddenly to live only for themselves, to transform their personality into a sort of mirror, in such a way that their life, however mediocre it may be socially and even, in a sense, intellectually, is reflected by it, genius consisting in reflecting power and not in the intrinsic quality of the scene reflected.”

The challenge of so many talents

Sally M. Reis, Ph.D. writes about the challenges of having many talents. Much of what she says also applies to men.

She notes, “Women with high potential and multiple interests often have multiple academic, career, and leisure possibilities, and these choices constitute multipotentiality.

“For some, having many choices is beneficial because they result in a variety of options.

“Others, however, often can not find their niche, make it on their own, or choose a vocational path.

“Many women with multipotentiality find decision making difficult since it is not possible to do all that they would like to do and are capable of doing.

“Students may commit to a career too quickly in order to reduce tensions caused by a vast array of competing options… career choices may be externally imposed on them by their parents or teachers who believe they know the appropriate field.”

[From article Internal barriers, personal issues, and decisions faced by gifted and talented females.]

Motivation is a key component

Carol S. Dweck, PhD, a Professor of Psychology at Stanford, thinks “our society tends to believe that geniuses are born, not made. And I wouldn’t dispute that there might be a strong innate component, but it’s just clear from the histories of so many geniuses that motivation is a key component.

“And when you sift through the literature on creative genius, the researchers agree that motivation is perhaps the number one component in the realization of genius.

“Many of our most illustrious geniuses in every field were people who were considered ordinary as children, and then just caught fire around their topic and achieved amazing things that we know about today – from Darwin, to Coleridge, to Cézanne.

“All of these people were not necessarily extraordinary children.” [From post: Adult genius, unexceptional kid.]

Also see her book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.

Professor John Eliot, PhD has noted that one myth “is that success can only be obtained if you select your goals early on, know exactly where you’re headed, develop a road map and focus on specific steps toward your long-term goal. The problem with that approach is that your path to success becomes very narrow.

“You can become so focused on a distant goal you lose your sense of creativity and your ability to overcome obstacles along the way. Another myth is the notion that those who try harder are more likely to be successful.

“I found that people who try less, who find a way to judge themselves a little less and allow themselves more freedom and flexibility in approach, are more apt to be successful.” [From article: A new model for exceptional performance.]

A Psychology Today article, The Winning Edge, by Peter Doskoch says, “We’re primed to think that talent is the key to success. But what counts even more is a fusion of passion and perseverance. In a world of instant gratification, grit may yield the biggest payoff of all.”

From post: Grit and perseverance mean more than talent.

Related article: Genius: The Modern View [NY Times op-ed, with added video, book links etc]

Related posts:

Developing our talents: the Growth Mindset

Creative talent: genetics, a muse, or hard work?

Related site: Developing Multiple Talents/a>