Genetics news, articles and features | Âé¶ą´«Ă˝ /topic/genetics/ Science news and science articles from Âé¶ą´«Ă˝ Thu, 09 Jul 2026 08:34:44 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1 242057827 I have a 100 per cent chance of getting cancer due to a rare gene /article/2532073-i-have-a-100-per-cent-chance-of-getting-cancer-due-to-a-rare-gene/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Fri, 26 Jun 2026 14:00:34 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2532073
Tracy Hutchinson has a rare mutation of the TP53 gene
Tracy Hutchinson

I started to wonder if something funky was going on when multiple people in my family got cancer around the same time. In 1990, my older sister Rebecca was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, when she was 21 and I was 14. While she was undergoing rigorous chemo, my mum was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Rebecca passed away in 1994 and then, a couple of years after that, my dad got bowel cancer. While he was undergoing treatment, my mum got cancer in her other breast. She survived that, but then she was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in 2009. She had major surgery, but it came back and she died six weeks later.

In 2020, my other sister was diagnosed with fast-growing triple-negative breast cancer and I thought, oh my god, there’s something going on here. My sister was tested for the BRCA mutations, variants of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that increase breast cancer risk, and it came back negative.

So then she was tested for a different mutation in a gene called TP53, which is much rarer but even worse. Women with this mutation have , with a 50 per cent chance before the age of 30. It’s called Li-Fraumeni syndrome and it basically means your TP53 gene, which normally functions as a cancer-suppressing gene, is a dud.

When my sister was offered the test, I was like: “What’s Li-Fraumeni syndrome?” It’s not something you ever hear about. The test came back positive and she was extremely distraught. Since it can run in families, I was then offered the test too. I decided to do it because I didn’t want my sister to go through this journey on her own.

I had the test in 2022, when I was 47, and it came back positive. I actually felt at peace with it, which a lot of people find surprising, but it was because I finally felt like I had answers for all the troubles my family has been through. It’s a personal thing, though – my brother, for example, has chosen not to get tested.

After getting the diagnosis, my life changed forever. When you have Li-Fraumeni syndrome, there isn’t an hour where you don’t think about it. It’s always on your mind. Within months of finding out I had the gene, I had a double mastectomy as a preventative measure. They found two ductal carcinomas in situ, early forms of cancer, in my left breast after it was removed.

I live in Sydney, so I was able to join an that is investigating annual whole-body MRI as a way to spot tumours in any location in people with mutations in TP53 or other genes that can cause cancer in multiple organs. I had my first one in 2022 and I was very nervous because I didn’t know if they’d find anything. It was normal, but in the second year, they found a 9-millimetre meningioma – a tumour in the meninges, the layers of tissue covering the brain. Fortunately, it’s benign, but I was very freaked out about it. It was a bit of a gamechanger for me.

I have my annual whole-body MRI every November and my “scanxiety” starts building from around July. I start thinking, is this going to be the year when everything changes? But being part of the study also gives me a sense of reassurance, because it’s designed to pick up cancers at an early stage when they are hopefully still treatable. My sister, who survived her breast cancer, now has annual MRIs too.

In addition to whole-body MRI, I have yearly skin checks with a dermatologist and an annual blood test. Every two years, I also have an endoscopy and colonoscopy. They’ve found polyps, abnormal cell growths that can develop into cancer, in my bowel, which were removed, plus some atypical cells in my oesophagus, which they’re keeping an eye on. I’m also on constant alert for anything unusual in my body. I’ll have a sore shoulder and get nervous because I’ll wonder, is this going to be something?

My geneticist thinks my mum might have had a de novo mutation, a mutation that arises spontaneously in an individual rather than being inherited, in her TP53 gene, which was passed down to me and my sisters. We don’t have children, so there isn’t a risk of us passing it on further.

My partner has been really supportive. After I found out I had the syndrome, he said: “You’ve just got to do what you’ve got to do.” When I had my double mastectomy, I didn’t go down the path of having a breast reconstruction and I was worried I looked like a freak, but he said: “Not at all. Your scars tell your battle.”

I try to stay positive because I figure that everyone has something they’re dealing with, be it a chronic disease or an injury or depression, and this is just my thing to bear. My sister-in-law, for example, recently had a stroke. We all have our things – some are visible and some are not – so we need to be compassionate towards each other. Life isn’t a white picket fence.

As told to Alice Klein

]]>
2532073
Screwworm could be the first species targeted by an ‘extinction drive’ /article/2531859-screwworm-could-be-the-first-species-targeted-by-an-extinction-drive/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Wed, 24 Jun 2026 17:19:04 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2531859 2531859 Our verdict on The Selfish Gene: An unpopular piece of popular science /article/2531275-our-verdict-on-the-selfish-gene-an-unpopular-piece-of-popular-science/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Wed, 24 Jun 2026 17:00:09 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2531275
The Âé¶ą´«Ă˝ Book Club read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins in June
°Őłó±đĚýÂé¶ą´«Ă˝ Book Club has been reading a popular-science classic in June: Richard Dawkins’s , which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. I hadn’t previously read this one – it had always intimidated me (an English graduate). But my colleague Rowan Hooper, a behavioural ecologist as well as our podcast editor, reread it to see how it holds up today and concluded it pretty much did. He had a few issues with the biology and said it “feels its age” – Dawkins himself admits to “sexist pronouns” in a 1989 preface – but Rowan found that “the core message remains relevant not just because genes being selfish is a brilliant meme (a term Dawkins coins at the end of the book), but because it is such a powerful way to understand how evolution operates: the metaphor makes us think as if genes behave selfishly”. It was time to gird my loins and embark on a book I’ve always been a bit embarrassed for omitting. I have to admit to being a little exhausted at first: there was preface after preface in my edition, in which Dawkins was arguing with all sorts of people about how the book had been received. This was somewhat confusing, given I hadn’t – yet –  read it. I should have skipped straight to the first chapter. Once I got into it, though, I found myself (mostly) carried along swimmingly by Dawkins’s writing. He certainly has a knack for a good metaphor – I particularly liked the idea of our bodies as “survival machines” for genes. Without having studied any biology after the age of 16, I got my head around his central point: that natural selection works because genes, or copies of them (replicators, as he calls them), are out to survive, building the optimal bodies (or survival machines) in order to do so. I did find his tone a little irascible and hectoring at times. It was like he was having conversations with various colleagues/rivals about his points, rather than the general reader. For example, talking about how “one gene may be regarded as a unit that survives through a large number of successive individual bodies”, he writes that “it is an argument that some of my most respected colleagues obstinately refuse to agree with, so you must forgive me if I seem to labour it!”. We’re also firmly told about the correct pronunciation of “algae” (a hard “g”, people). There’s a lot of that sort of thing, but I finished feeling pleased to have got my head (mostly) around his argument. Book club members were less impressed – this is, I think, the book that has received the most negative comments of any we’ve read, with a handful of members deciding not to join us in reading it at all, as they disagreed with some of Dawkins’s personal views. (I share the perspective of member pwhipp, who wrote on our channel: “I don’t think we should reject serious scientific writing simply because the author is combative, controversial, or personally irritating. If we did that consistently, the shelves would become very thin indeed.”) Pwhipp, by the way, called The Selfish Gene “an important and very well-written book, whatever one thinks of Dawkins’ public persona or his outspoken atheism”.
Pwhipp was in the minority, however. Alan P was one re-reader who felt “underwhelmed” by The Selfish Gene. “The text is (as he admits himself but doesn’t change) sexist throughout. It’s not just the assumption of male pronouns for general statements, but there are some comments in the end notes and the text of the book itself that even for the eighties are questionable,” he wrote. “The tone is argumentative – sometimes I’m not clear that it isn’t argument for its own sake – but it’s definitely jarring. The endless footnotes contradicting the text are really difficult to follow. If the science has changed then the text of the book needs to change as well. So it may be that it was a masterly summary of the known science in its day – but now it’s a bad tempered, difficult to follow, mess.” Alan did enjoy the new chapter “Nice guys finish first”, added to later editions: “I was always of the opinion that genes don’t make ethics so it’s nice to have the idea that even if genetic determinism was a thing, that cooperation is a successful strategy in the wild.” Dee55, meanwhile, first read The Selfish Gene back in the early 80s and found it “an absolute revelation” at the time. Going back to it was “interesting”, but, as a humanities graduate, Dee55 found “specific challenges in following some of the arguments”. “I enjoyed the Chapter 5 stuff on the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) as a fun ride, but I think I need to reread it before continuing. I am very aware that I am just not in a position to assess RD’s ideas in the context of other evolutionary biology thinking,” Dee55 wrote. Rowan took a deeper dive into the book in a longer piece for Âé¶ą´«Ă˝, speaking to biologists about its message and what still stands today. Taking into account developments in the field that have happened over the past 50 years, Rowan wrote that “all the evolutionary biologists I spoke to for this piece struggled to find major problems with The Selfish Gene”. There was one exception: the idea of the meme, which, despite its memetic proliferation today, “doesn’t hold up”, he was told. Overall, then, a thorny choice: this particular piece of popular science was notedly unpopular for the Âé¶ą´«Ă˝ Book Club. When you make a purchase via the links on this page, we receive a commission.]]>
2531275
Unapproved gene therapy for boosting longevity is set to go on sale /article/2530933-unapproved-gene-therapy-for-boosting-longevity-is-set-to-go-on-sale/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Tue, 23 Jun 2026 11:14:33 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2530933 2530933 Are we getting to the point where it’s safe to gene-edit babies? /article/2529355-are-we-getting-to-the-point-where-its-safe-to-gene-edit-babies/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Fri, 05 Jun 2026 19:11:08 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2529355 2529355 Huge study of Alzheimer’s genetics identifies new drug targets /article/2528511-huge-study-of-alzheimers-genetics-identifies-new-drug-targets/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Mon, 01 Jun 2026 11:00:24 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2528511 2528511 Âé¶ą´«Ă˝ recommends Turi King’s expert book about DNA’s secrets /article/2527681-new-scientist-recommends-turi-kings-expert-book-about-dnas-secrets/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Wed, 27 May 2026 18:00:00 +0000 http://mg27035970.600 2527681 The Selfish Gene at 50: Why Dawkins’s evolution classic still holds up /article/2525646-the-selfish-gene-at-50-why-dawkinss-evolution-classic-still-holds-up/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Wed, 20 May 2026 13:00:33 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2525646 2525646 Intoxicating and astonishing: Why ‘The Selfish Gene’ almost never was /article/2525708-intoxicating-and-astonishing-why-the-selfish-gene-almost-never-was/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Wed, 20 May 2026 13:00:25 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2525708 2525708 Huge study of ancient British DNA reveals only minor Roman influence /article/2525923-huge-study-of-ancient-british-dna-reveals-only-minor-roman-influence/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_content=genetics&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=NSNS Mon, 11 May 2026 11:00:50 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2525923 2525923