Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse
Latest checks

Source study found

Story checked

Study defines average human genome and normal genetic disease risk (opens in a new tab)

news-medical.net · 2026-10-22

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

2 claims go further than the study. 2 other points were not covered by the paper.

  • 3 supported
  • 2 overstated
  • 2 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

Two of seven claims overstate the study. Three of seven check out. Two claims the study doesn't address.

  • 3 supported
  • 2 overstated
  • 2 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

7 claims in this story

Showing all 7 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • Structural variation/CNV burden: about 67 autosomal deletions/duplications greater than 10 kb per genome and rare autosomal CNVs greater than 1 Mb in about 2.5% of people.

    This is a material part of the paper’s average-genome characterization, but the story claims provided do not discuss structural variants or CNVs.

    From WGS structural-variant/CNV callset analysis

  • Homozygosity and runs of homozygosity: about 32–42% of variants per person are homozygous and individuals have about four ROH greater than 1.5 Mb, with marked ancestry-group differences.

    The story does not mention homozygosity, runs of homozygosity, or the ancestry-specific differences reported for those measures.

    From ROH/homozygosity analysis

  • Interpretation limitation for disease annotations: ClinVar, GenCC, LoF prediction, REVEL scores, and VUS classifications are annotation-dependent and do not by themselves establish penetrance, diagnosis, or clinical actionability.

    The story mentions that many disease-linked variants may not cause disease and that clinical context matters, which partially addresses penetrance. But it does not clearly convey the annotation-dependence of the reported burdens or the limitations of ClinVar, VUS, LoF prediction, and REVEL-based classification.

    From cross-cohort WGS coding-variant consequence profiling (MANE Select); WGS population burden analysis (GenCC-restricted, C

  • Methodological limitation: absolute variant counts depend on sequencing, variant-calling, QC pipelines, transcript restrictions, and for de novo estimates the availability and handling of parental data.

    The story does not mention that the reported counts are sensitive to variant-calling/QC choices, transcript-set restrictions, or the limited abstract-level detail for de novo inference.

    From secondary WGS cohort descriptive analysis; WGS structural-variant/CNV callset analysis; cross-cohort WGS coding-variant

  • PGS-specific limitation: the abstract profile does not provide score derivation, calibration, discrimination, clinical utility, or detailed ancestry-transferability information for the 28 common-disease PGS.

    The story notes that health status was not investigated, but it does not address the paper-profile limitations that PGS percentile-tail membership is not the same as validated clinical prediction and that calibration/transferability details are absent at abstract depth.

    From secondary_data

7 things the story did carry across
  • Large-scale WGS cohort basis: UK Biobank and All of Us, with about 905,000 post-QC whole genomes used to define average genome variation.
  • Core average-genome variant burden: about 4.3–5.3 million variants per person, with rarity and ancestry-stratified summaries.
  • Coding-variant consequence profiling: about 21,000–26,000 coding SNVs/indels per person in MANE Select transcripts, about 48% protein-altering, with high-confidence LoF and REVEL subsets.
  • Rare monogenic-disease-gene burden: about 1–3 ClinVar pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants and about 50 VUS per average genome, with many pathogenic variants consistent with carrier status.
  • Polygenic-score analysis: within UK Biobank, PGS for 28 common diseases placed the average person in the top 10% for about three conditions and about 1 in 5 in the top 1% for at least one PGS.
  • De novo variation: average of about 63 de novo variants, with paternal-origin predominance and dependence on parental age.
  • Generalizability limitation: UK Biobank and All of Us do not fully represent global population diversity, and the authors call for more inclusive datasets.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

8

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

secondary data

1Lead resultsecondary dataQuantify the amount and spectrum of genetic variation in an “average” human genome using large-scale WGS datasets, including SNVs/indels, structural variants/CNVs, homozygosity/ROH, and variation across genetically inferred ancestry groups.secondary WGS cohort descriptive analysisExpand

In plain English

Descriptive, cross-cohort analysis of per-individual whole-genome variation using WGS from UK Biobank (n=490,541) and All of Us (n=414,830) after variant/genotype QC, reporting totals and spectrum of SNVs/indels, structural variants/CNVs, homozygosity/ROH, and ancestry-stratified differences to define an "average" human genome.

Key findings

  • Average total variant burden per genome is ~4.3–5.3 million variants.~4.3–5.3 million variants/person
  • Rare variants (within-cohort AF <1%) comprise ~1.5% of variants in the average genome.~1.5% rare
“We analysed WGS data from two large population cohorts: 490,541 individuals in UK Biobank (UKB) and 414,830 individuals in All of Us.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Analyses are based on two large cohorts (UKB and All of Us) and reflect their demographic composition; authors note underrepresentation of many global populations.
  • Estimates depend on cohort-specific sequencing, variant-calling and QC pipelines which can affect absolute counts and sensitivity for certain variant classes.
  • Some estimates (e.g., de novo counts) depend on parental age data and availability of trio information; ancestry-stratified patterns reflect genetically inferred groups rather than fully representative global populations.
2secondary dataQuantify the amount and spectrum of genetic variation in an “average” human genome using large-scale WGS datasets, including SNVs/indels, structural variants/CNVs, homozygosity/ROH, and variation across genetically inferred ancestry groups.WGS structural-variant/CNV callset analysisExpand

In plain English

Using WGS from two large population cohorts (UK Biobank: 490,541; All of Us: 414,830) after variant/genotype QC, the authors report per-individual structural-variant/copy-number burden summaries. They state an average genome contains ~67 autosomal deletions/duplications >10,000 basepairs and that rare autosomal CNVs >1 Mb occur in ~1 in 41 individuals (~2.5%).

Key findings

  • Average autosomal deletions/duplications >10,000 basepairs per genome ~67.~67 per genome
  • Rare autosomal copy number variants >1 Mb present in ~1 in 41 individuals (~2.5%).~2.5% prevalence (1 in 41)
“This includes ~67 autosomal deletions/duplications > 10,000 basepairs per genome, and rare autosomal copy number variants > 1 Mb present in ~ 1 in 41 (2.5%) individuals.”
What this piece can’t prove

3 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

3secondary dataQuantify the amount and spectrum of genetic variation in an “average” human genome using large-scale WGS datasets, including SNVs/indels, structural variants/CNVs, homozygosity/ROH, and variation across genetically inferred ancestry groups.ROH/homozygosity analysisExpand

In plain English

Cross-cohort WGS analysis reports per-individual homozygosity and runs-of-homozygosity (ROH) burden, showing that an average genome has ~32–42% of variants homozygous and approximately 4 unique ROH >1.5 Mb, with marked differences across genetically inferred ancestry groups.

Key findings

  • A substantial fraction of variants per person are homozygous.~32–42% homozygous
  • Individuals carry multiple long runs of homozygosity.≈4 unique ROH >1.5 Mb per person
“On average, ~32–42% of variants per person are homozygous and individuals have ~4 unique runs of homozygosity > 1.5 Mb, with marked variation observed across ancestry groups.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Continued underrepresentation of many global populations in the analyzed datasets limits generalisability of ancestry-stratified results.
4secondary dataCharacterize potentially disease-relevant variation in the average genome (coding consequence predictions; high-confidence LoF; ClinVar pathogenic/likely pathogenic and VUS burden in GenCC-curated monogenic disease genes; carrier-status patterns).cross-cohort WGS coding-variant consequence profiling (MANE Select)Expand

In plain English

Cross-cohort analysis of coding variation restricted to MANE Select transcripts to quantify per-individual counts and predicted consequence distributions relevant to monogenic disease assessment. Using WGS from two large cohorts, the authors report per-person counts of coding SNVs/indels (21–26k), the fraction predicted protein-altering (~48%), proportions classified as high-confidence loss-of-function (~0.8%) and those with REVEL > 0.7 (~0.1%). They also report per-genome burdens restricted to GenCC-curated monogenic disease genes: ~1–3 ClinVar pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants, ~2–5 high-confidence LoF variants, and ~50 ClinVar variants of uncertain significance, and note that most ClinVar pathogenic variants are heterozygous in recessive genes consistent with carrier status.

Key findings

  • Number of coding exon SNVs/indels per person (MANE Select transcripts).21–26,000 variants per person
  • Proportion of coding variants predicted to alter the protein.≈48%
“Of the ~21– 26,000 SNVs/indels per person in coding exons of MANE Select transcripts, ~48% are predicted to alter the protein, of which ~0.8% are high-confidence loss-of-function and ~0.1% have REVEL score > 0.7 suggestive of pathogenicity.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Analysis restricted to MANE Select transcripts; results do not capture coding variation outside this transcript set.
  • Reliance on in silico consequence annotations (LoF classification, REVEL scores) and ClinVar submissions—predictive or submission-based labels do not equal confirmed clinical pathogenicity.
  • Counts and proportions reflect the analysed cohorts (UK Biobank and All of Us) and may not generalize to underrepresented populations; the authors note continued underrepresentation of many global populations.
  • Abstract lacks detailed description of annotation tools, LoF-filtering criteria, per-variant QC thresholds, and handling of multi-allelic/complex variants.
5secondary dataCharacterize potentially disease-relevant variation in the average genome (coding consequence predictions; high-confidence LoF; ClinVar pathogenic/likely pathogenic and VUS burden in GenCC-curated monogenic disease genes; carrier-status patterns).WGS population burden analysis (GenCC-restricted, ClinVar-annotated)Expand

In plain English

Across nearly 1 million WGS (UK Biobank + All of Us) and restricting to rare variants in GenCC-curated monogenic disease genes, the average individual carries a small number of ClinVar-designated pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants and a larger number of variants of uncertain significance, with most ClinVar pathogenic variants observed as heterozygotes in recessive genes (consistent with carrier status).

Key findings

  • Average genome contains ~1–3 ClinVar pathogenic or likely pathogenic rare variants within GenCC-curated monogenic disease genes.~1–3 per individual
  • Average genome contains ~2–5 high-confidence loss-of-function rare variants within GenCC genes.~2–5 per individual
“Considering only rare variants in GenCC-curated monogenic disease-associated genes, the average genome contains ~1–3 ClinVar pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, ~2–5 high-confidence loss-of-function variants, and ~50 ClinVar variants of uncertain significance.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Analyses restricted to rare variants in GenCC-curated monogenic disease genes; results do not represent genome-wide burdens outside that gene set.
  • Reliance on ClinVar clinical-significance annotations and on high-confidence LoF predictions, both of which have known limitations and can change over time.
  • Per-individual averages are aggregated across UK Biobank and All of Us and are affected by the cohorts' ancestry composition and underrepresentation of some global populations.
  • Counts reflect bioinformatic annotation and not clinical validation of pathogenicity or penetrance.
6secondary dataEstimate typical de novo variant burden and parental-origin patterns as a function of parental age (as reported in the abstract).secondary dataExpand

In plain English

Abstract reports that, depending on parental age, the average genome contains ~63 de novo variants, with ~75–80% of those being paternal in origin.

Key findings

  • Depending upon parental age, the average genome contains ~63 de novo variants, of which ~75–80% are paternal in origin.~63 de novo variants; 75–80% paternal
“Depending upon parental age, the average genome contains ~63 de novo variants, of which ~75–80% are paternal in origin.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Information limited to abstract; methods and sample selection for de novo and parent-of-origin inference are not provided.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

7secondary dataApply polygenic scores (PGS) for common diseases (within UK Biobank) to estimate how often an average person is in high-risk tails across multiple conditions.secondary dataExpand

In plain English

Within UK Biobank participants, the authors applied polygenic scores for 28 common diseases and report that the "average person" is in the top 10% of PGS for approximately 3 conditions, and that about 1 in 5 people are in the top 1% for at least one PGS.

Key findings

  • "Finally, applying polygenic scores (PGS) for 28 common diseases within UKB, we estimate that the average person is in the top 10% for ~3 conditions, and around 1 in 5 people are in the top 1% for at least one PGS."~3 conditions in top 10% per person; ~20% of individuals in top 1% for at least one PGS
“Finally, applying polygenic scores (PGS) for 28 common diseases within UKB, we estimate that the average person is in the top 10% for ~3 conditions, and around 1 in 5 people are in the top 1% for at least one PGS.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Abstract does not specify the 28 diseases included, the GWAS sources or weights used to build PGS, nor any ancestry-stratified analyses—raising potential concerns about PGS transferability and bias.

3 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

8otherProvide policy/clinical contextualization about implications of ubiquitous variation and the need for more inclusive global representation (interpretive conclusions).narrative interpretationExpand

In plain English

The authors interpret their empirical WGS findings to argue that pervasive individual genetic variation has practical implications for policy-makers considering genomic screening programs and for clinicians who counsel families. They also state that the analysed cohorts do not represent many global populations and argue for more inclusive sequencing datasets to support equitable precision medicine and generalizable policy decisions.

Key findings

  • The ubiquity of genetic variation in individual genomes implies important considerations for policy-makers evaluating genomic screening and for clinicians providing genetic counselling.
  • The continued underrepresentation of many global populations in the analysed cohorts is a limitation and supports a recommendation for more inclusive global datasets to enable equitable precision medicine.
“The ubiquity of genetic variation in individuals has important implications for policy-makers considering genomic screening and clinicians counselling families.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Interpretive/policy statements are derived from the study's results rather than from dedicated empirical analyses of screening programs or health-system outcomes.
  • Recommendations for inclusivity are normative and do not quantify how expanded representation would alter risk estimates or clinical utility for specific populations.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Open the paper in Tessa

The average individual genome: a survey of nearly 1 million whole-genome sequences

Genome Medicine · 2026

Why this one

Near certain

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa is where you inspect it deeply.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

Crossref, Europe PMC, PubMed · 36 candidate papers

Selected

The average individual genome: a survey of nearly 1 million whole-genome sequences

Genome Medicine · 2026 · Crossref

Candidate

Author response for "Not All Practice Is Created Equal: Longitudinal Evidence from over 40,000 Chess Players"

2026 · Crossref

And 30 more candidates considered.