The government in the eastern Chinese province of Jiangsu has unveiled a plan to sequence the genomes of 1 million people for a large DNA sequencing platform and biomedical big data analysis center in Nanjing as well as a genetic information database for Chinese.

1 million genome sequences can crack problems like the genetic basis of intelligence

One million people is significant because physicist and genome information expert Steve Hsu’s estimates that a sample size of roughly 1 million people may be required to reliably identify the genetic signals of intelligence.

* Intelligence is (at least crudely) measurable
* Intelligence is highly heritable (much of the variance is determined by DNA)
* Intelligence is highly polygenic (controlled by many genetic variants, each of small effect)
* Intelligence is going to be deciphered at the molecular level, in the near future, by genomic studies with very large sample size

Cracking other complex features with a genetic basis will also need large (1 million) sample sizes and they need to be combined with detailed medical records and testing of gut bacteria and other factors to tease out more and more of the causal relationships.

Once intelligence is cracked then the information will be used by tiger parents to use IVF and selection of superior embryos.

The 1 million person genome sequencing project was announced at the China-US Precision Medicine Initiatives Nanjing Summit yesterday and Four experts from China and abroad will act as senior consultants. One consultant is George Church, a professor of genetics from Harvard University, who is the “Godfather of genetics”.

The National Health Medicine Big Data (Nanjing) Center began building its facilities last October. Almost a billion dollars (USD902.28 million, CNY6 billion) has gone into the project. It can store 52 petabytes can cover the health records of 80 million individuals and video materials from 174 of the province’s hospitals. They have the capacity to sequence about 400,000 to 500,000 people each year. It will take about two years to sequence one million people.

SOURCES – Infoproc, yicaiglobal.com

Brian Wang

Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.

Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.

A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.

Makes more sense to genotype a few million rather than sequence them. It is probably less than $50 per person to genotype, but perhaps $800 per person to sequence. It would be quite expensive therefore to sequence 2 million people, unless you get some economies of scale. And if you sequence 10k you likely would have identified all the variants in the population that you could say anything meaningful about statistically. And you could just genotype the rest checking for all of those variants for far less money. Almost nothing would elude that genotype test.

Though purely from a scientific view, 2 million complete genomes would be an incredible resource. It would be great for finding out how the DNA that does not code for proteins does its thing. The 2% or so of it that does something that is, and not just along for the ride.

If you are going to sequence 2 million people, there is something to be said for sequencing people from all over the world instead.

And if you were going to test just one area, I think I would do it in South Africa. There is a huge amount of genetic variation there. Or I would do it in New Guinea because you have genetic information about all the known ancestral groups: Cro Magnon, Neanderthal, Denisovan, and the as yet unnamed fourth group only identified in New Guinean DNA. They haven’t named the fourth because it could be something else we have already named. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/dna-of-extinct-human-species-pacific-islanders-analysis-suggests/7968950

The reality is though that it is very hard to determine what anything does and there is an offal lot of it to figure out. 23andme has millions of genomes and the best genotyping, but they are way off saying things about me that are obvious. I am a poster boy for connected earlobes, but they say they are not, I have cheek dimples, always have, it says no. I have a widow’s peak and, yes, when I was a kid, not just from hair loss. But it says no. It says I don’t have a cleft chin. And while it is not extremely pronounced, I would say it is there. Even eye color they do a pathetic job on. They call anything that is not black, blue (or they did for a while). Still no detail at all. Every bet hedged to the hilt. They first said I could not smell asparagus in my urine, after eating asparagus, but I can easily. But they flip-floped on that and now have that correct. But they flip-floped on the sweet vs salty preference and now have that wrong. They say I have strait or wavy hair. That is ridiculous. I have had very curly hair forever. Not tight curls, but definitely curly (from Swedish on one side and Scottish on the other. I can see that in photos of my ancestors). My hair color they also got wrong. They say light brown or blond. And while it was blond when I as 3 years old and younger, it has been on the brown to dark brown side every since. Of the 22 “traits” (physical description things) they have 10 wrong. That is pathetic. Not much better than chance. So their math is probably crap. Or there are a lot of lairs/imbeciles on their surveys. My eye color did change. It was unambiguously brown. Then it changed and now has a green ring instead and is more of an olive hazel color overall. Changed after I was 20.

If they can’t get these things right, how do I know any of it is right?

I have little doubt they have my code very accurate. It is what they think it says that is very dubious. Genes affecting other gene expression is probably not well addressed. On the other hand, there are these people who used machine learning to figure out what criminals or victims look like: https://snapshot.parabon-nanolabs.com/examples They seem to be a bit off on noses and foreheads. But mostly pretty good. Asian skin tones look off too. So maybe it will take some machine learning to make more sense of things like intelligence.

You also have to test for intelligence as well, to make the associations. That part is problematic. Nutrition, exposure to toxins, exposure to pathogens, medical conditions, drugs, sleep, anxiety, depression, and other psychological conditions, the weather, traumatic events (psychological and physical), general life stress, mother’s health during pregnancy, familiarity with tests, education/parental interaction, interactions with friends and siblings, the expectations of others…all this can effect results. Better is MRI and other brain scans, and reaction time and other response to stimulus stuff done during a scan. Still, that only corrects for a fraction of environmental stuff, but it is much better, and with millions of scans, corresponding genomes, and the right computer processing, the information should be obtainable.

3 thoughts on “China Province of Jiansu will genome sequence one million people within two years”

Mindbreaker

November 8, 2017 at 10:32 pm

Makes more sense to genotype a few million rather than sequence them. It is probably less than $50 per person to genotype, but perhaps $800 per person to sequence. It would be quite expensive therefore to sequence 2 million people, unless you get some economies of scale. And if you sequence 10k you likely would have identified all the variants in the population that you could say anything meaningful about statistically. And you could just genotype the rest checking for all of those variants for far less money. Almost nothing would elude that genotype test.

Though purely from a scientific view, 2 million complete genomes would be an incredible resource. It would be great for finding out how the DNA that does not code for proteins does its thing. The 2% or so of it that does something that is, and not just along for the ride.

If you are going to sequence 2 million people, there is something to be said for sequencing people from all over the world instead.

And if you were going to test just one area, I think I would do it in South Africa. There is a huge amount of genetic variation there. Or I would do it in New Guinea because you have genetic information about all the known ancestral groups: Cro Magnon, Neanderthal, Denisovan, and the as yet unnamed fourth group only identified in New Guinean DNA. They haven’t named the fourth because it could be something else we have already named. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/dna-of-extinct-human-species-pacific-islanders-analysis-suggests/7968950

The reality is though that it is very hard to determine what anything does and there is an offal lot of it to figure out. 23andme has millions of genomes and the best genotyping, but they are way off saying things about me that are obvious. I am a poster boy for connected earlobes, but they say they are not, I have cheek dimples, always have, it says no. I have a widow’s peak and, yes, when I was a kid, not just from hair loss. But it says no. It says I don’t have a cleft chin. And while it is not extremely pronounced, I would say it is there. Even eye color they do a pathetic job on. They call anything that is not black, blue (or they did for a while). Still no detail at all. Every bet hedged to the hilt. They first said I could not smell asparagus in my urine, after eating asparagus, but I can easily. But they flip-floped on that and now have that correct. But they flip-floped on the sweet vs salty preference and now have that wrong. They say I have strait or wavy hair. That is ridiculous. I have had very curly hair forever. Not tight curls, but definitely curly (from Swedish on one side and Scottish on the other. I can see that in photos of my ancestors). My hair color they also got wrong. They say light brown or blond. And while it was blond when I as 3 years old and younger, it has been on the brown to dark brown side every since. Of the 22 “traits” (physical description things) they have 10 wrong. That is pathetic. Not much better than chance. So their math is probably crap. Or there are a lot of lairs/imbeciles on their surveys. My eye color did change. It was unambiguously brown. Then it changed and now has a green ring instead and is more of an olive hazel color overall. Changed after I was 20.

If they can’t get these things right, how do I know any of it is right?

I have little doubt they have my code very accurate. It is what they think it says that is very dubious. Genes affecting other gene expression is probably not well addressed. On the other hand, there are these people who used machine learning to figure out what criminals or victims look like: https://snapshot.parabon-nanolabs.com/examples They seem to be a bit off on noses and foreheads. But mostly pretty good. Asian skin tones look off too. So maybe it will take some machine learning to make more sense of things like intelligence.

You also have to test for intelligence as well, to make the associations. That part is problematic. Nutrition, exposure to toxins, exposure to pathogens, medical conditions, drugs, sleep, anxiety, depression, and other psychological conditions, the weather, traumatic events (psychological and physical), general life stress, mother’s health during pregnancy, familiarity with tests, education/parental interaction, interactions with friends and siblings, the expectations of others…all this can effect results. Better is MRI and other brain scans, and reaction time and other response to stimulus stuff done during a scan. Still, that only corrects for a fraction of environmental stuff, but it is much better, and with millions of scans, corresponding genomes, and the right computer processing, the information should be obtainable.
James Bowery

November 7, 2017 at 4:46 pm

I can prove to you NBF neonazi eugenicists that IQ is 100% environement: Just give me a genius IQ individual and a loaded shotgun and I’ll give you a 0 IQ pile of maggot food — 100% environmental determinism. So much for your plans of exterminating the Jews, you morons!
- Mindbreaker
  
  November 8, 2017 at 10:40 pm
  
  I fear it will be neurotic reactions like yours that start the next genocidal hate wave. The targets won’t be Jews, Gypsies or Armenians, they will be those modified to be more intelligent, or gifted in other ways. Children modified by their loving parents wanting the best for their children. It is the dummies that attack the smart people and claim purity, uniformity or some other windbag nonsense that commit these atrocities.

Comments are closed.