The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced today that 13 new embryonic stem cell lines are now eligible for federal funding. That means that scientists with NIH grants can study embryonic stem cells derived using newer, more refined methods generally considered to be superior to the older ones. Ninety-six additional lines are also now under review.

"Those were early days in the science of stem cell research, and much has been learned since then," said NIH director Francis Collins in a press conference on Wednesday, referring to the stem cell lines, created before 2001, that had previously been eligible for federal funding. "In the last eight years, hundreds of embryonic stem cell lines have been derived using non-federal funds, many of them carrying more favorable characteristics."

As I wrote in a previous story:

Using only the old lines is like "being required to use Microsoft Word 1998," says Jeanne Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the Scripps Research Institute, in La Jolla, CA.

The earlier lines were derived using animal products, making them largely unfit for therapeutic use. "There are hundreds of embryonic stem-cell lines out there that have been made under the best conditions, and some of them are patient ready," says John Gearhart, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia. "They have greater utility, performance, and safety than [the Bush-approved] lines."

The announcement follows President Obama's executive order made last March, enabling government support for embryonic stem cell research. That order overturned a previous one by President Bush in 2001, limiting federally-funded research to a set of existing cell lines. The 2001 decree forced scientists who wanted to create and use new stem cell lines, derived from leftover IVF embryos, to garner private funding.

Eleven of the 13 new lines were generated in George Daley's lab at Children's Hospital, in Boston, which used private funding to make them. According to the New York Times, "Dr. Daley said that private financing had been drying up and that he was eager to start research on the now-approved cell lines with the help of his federal grant money." Researchers still cannot derive new lines using federal funds--creating new lines requires the destruction of an embryo.

Francis Collins (right), the former head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, was named one of GQ magazine's rock stars of science. He is now working on a book on personalized medicine. Credit: Ben Watts

Just exactly how accurate are direct-to-consumer genetic tests? Francis Collins, the former head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, decided to find out for himself while researching a new book on personalized medicine. (Collins published the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in 2006.)

Collins, who played a central role in the Human Genome Project and is rumored to be the next head of the National Institutes of Health, announced at the Consumer Genetics Conference in Boston last week that he had had his genome analyzed by the big three of direct-to-consumer genetic testing: 23andMe, Navigenics, and DecodeMe. He ordered the tests under a fake name, lest the genomics superstar get special treatment. His speech at the conference was the first time the companies heard that they had had Collins's DNA in hand.

Collins said that sequence-wise, the tests "appear to be highly accurate": there were almost no differences in the genotype information generated in the three different analyses. But there were significant differences in the numbers of genetic variations used to calculate disease risk, as well as the final risk score. For example, one company used 5 single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, to calculate risk for a particular disease, pronouncing Collins at low risk. Another used 10 SNPs, placing him at high risk, and the third used 15, concluding that he is at average risk. Collins also said that the analyses provided little information on his "carrier status," meaning whether he carried genetic risk factors that didn't influence his own risk of disease but could be passed down to future generations.

Collins's speech last week was more upbeat than one he gave at the Personal Genomes Conference in Cold Spring Harbor last fall. In that lecture, he emphasized the potential difficulty in finding the as yet remaining genetic variations underlying the heritability of disease. In the latest speech, he instead emphasized what could come out of genome-wide association studies: new targets for drugs.

"We have undervalued these studies," he said at the Consumer Genetics Conference. "Even if a variant has a small impact on disease risk, that doesn't mean it's not a good risk target." In type 2 diabetes, for example, two of the nine common genetic variants that have so far been linked to the disease are involved in the pathway targeted by two major diabetes drugs. "[Pharma companies and others] have not jumped on this as rigorously as they could," said Collins. "Perhaps because it's a bit overwhelming--there are so many of them."