Attitudes and Opinions About Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in Undergraduate Science Students

Background: There has been exponential growth in the number of direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits sold in the past decade. Consumers utilize direct-to-consumer genetic tests for a number of reasons which include learning about one’s ancestry and potential ways to manage health. Emerging adults tend to be early adopters of new technologies; however, there has been little research regarding the opinions about direct-to-consumer genetic testing in emerging adults. Methods: Data came from a study conducted in an upper-level biology course focusing on understanding undergraduate science students’ overall experiences with receiving personalized genetic testing results from 23andMe. The present study used data collected at the baseline assessment which assessed their opinions and attitudes about direct-to-consumer genetic testing (N=133). Results: Over 80% of participants would recommend direct-to-consumer genetic testing options including carrier status reports, DNA ancestry reports, wellness reports, and trait reports to others. However, participants were not as confident that others would be able to accurately interpret their test results. Additionally, more than two-thirds of the participants stated that they would ask a healthcare provider to help interpret their personalized genetic test results. Conclusions: Participants lack confidence in both their ability to interpret their own results and others to interpret their results. It is important for direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to educate consumers before providing results in order to minimize potential harms due to misinterpretation of results. Further research is needed to assess motivations to participate in direct-to-consumer genetic testing, impact of testing, and understanding of genetic testing results in emerging adults.https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/gradposters/1124/thumbnail.jp

Convergent and environmentally associated chromatic polymorphism in Bryconops Kner, 1858 (Ostariophysi: Characiformes: Iguanodectidae).

Bryconops Kner, 1858, includes two well defined subgenera based on morphological evidence, with each containing at least one species (B. (Bryconops) caudomaculatus and B. (Creatochanes) melanurus) with a very wide distribution, within which regional populations present color variations. To test if phenotypic variation is related to cladogenetic events, we performed tests for phylogenetic independence and determined the strength of convergence for color characters in relation to water type, as the variation between clear, black and white waters is considered to be one of the major driving forces in the evolution of Amazonian fishes. Color characters for fins above the median line of the body were generally found to be independent from phylogeny and the Wheatsheaf test strongly supports convergence of the dorsal fin color between populations of species in the same type of water, with a similar trend suggested for the color of the dorsal lobe of the caudal fin. This means that simple color characters cannot necessarily be relied upon for taxonomic revisions of the genus as local phenotypic variants may represent environmentally determined plasticity or convergent evolution. Further studies are required to determine the validity of these characters

Phylogenetic independence and coevolutionary strength tests.

Test for phylogenetic independence of phenotypical traits using Autocorrelation (Abouheif’s Cmean) and Brownian Motion model (Pagel’s λ), and coevolutionary strength of these traits with water type as determined by Wheatsheaf test, presenting the value of the index (Wheatsheaf) with the respective lower and upper bounds and significance (P).</p

Morphological characters.

Table containing information about color patter for five morphological characters and the watter type for specimen. The morphological characters Dorsal fin melanin (DF_Mel) possess two states (hyalin, and any black); Color of dorsal fin (DF), Color of adipose fin (AdF), Color of dorsal lobe of caudal fin (DLCF), and Color of ventral lobe of caudal fin (VLCF) possess four color states (hyalin, yellow, orange, and red); while Water type (WT) possess four [transparent, few tannins (secchi > 1m), many tannins or slight turbidity (secchi (XLSX)</p

Variation in color of the <i>B</i>. <i>(Creatochanes)</i> clade across sample locations.

a) Bryconops (C.) giacopinii (Manaus—dark Blackwaters); b) Bryconops (C.) melanurus (Manaus—light Blackwaters); c) Bryconops (C.) melanurus (Coastal—light Blackwaters); d) Bryconops (C.) aff. affinis (Xingu—Clearwaters). (PDF)</p

Specimens details.

Table containing taxonomy information (Family, Genus and Species); curatorial information (Identifier, sampling date, collection deposited and sequence id for BOLD); and geographical information (Country, State, Eco region, Latitude and Longitude) for the new sequenced specimens, respectively. (XLSX)</p

Variation in color of the <i>B</i>. <i>(Bryconops)</i> clade across sample locations.

a) Bryconops (B.) caudomaculatus (Manaus—dark Blackwaters); b) Bryconops (B.) caudomaculatus (S Guiana shield—lighter Blackwaters); c) Bryconops (B.) caudomaculatus (Coastal—lighter Blackwaters); d) Bryconops (B.) rheorubrum (Xingu—Clearwaters and turbid waters). (PDF)</p

<i>Bryconops</i> phylogeny.

Maximum likelihood phylogeny with vertical bars representing sample location by ecoregion (ER), water type (WT), and results of species delimitation analyses. Support values for nodes are based on Bayesian a posteriori probability (above) and bootstrap for ML and NJ analyses (below, separated by slash) respectively. The colors displayed for ER are in accordance with the inset map, while colors for WT are in accordance with the map from Fig 1. The Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs) identified by ABGD (A), bPTP (b) and GYMC (G) species delimitation methodologies were colored to highlight the subgenera Bryconops (purple, blue and greens) and Creatochanes (yellow, orange, red and pinks).* = 100% bootstrap support or BPP = 1,— = no support.</p

Summary data for sample numbers by species (N Total), number of localities from which they were sampled, and water types, and number of samples by water type (N_WT).

Summary data for sample numbers by species (N Total), number of localities from which they were sampled, and water types, and number of samples by water type (N_WT).</p