skip to main content
10.1145/3289600.3290983acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Enabling Privacy-Preserving Sharing of Genomic Data for GWASs in Decentralized Networks

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 January 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The human genome can reveal sensitive information and is potentially re-identifiable, which raises privacy and security concerns about sharing such data on wide scales. In this work, we propose a preventive approach for privacy-preserving sharing of genomic data in decentralized networks for Genome-wide association studies (GWASs), which have been widely used in discovering the association between genotypes and phenotypes. The key components of this work are: a decentralized secure network, with a privacy- preserving sharing protocol, and a gene fragmentation framework that is trainable in an end-to-end manner. Our experiments on real datasets show the effectiveness of our privacy-preserving approaches as well as significant improvements in efficiency when compared with recent, related algorithms.

References

  1. Mikhail J Atallah, Florian Kerschbaum, andWenliang Du. 2003. Secure and private sequence comparisons. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society. ACM, 39--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Pierre Baldi, Roberta Baronio, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Paolo Gasti, and Gene Tsudik. 2011. Countering gattaca: efficient and secure testing of fully-sequenced human genomes. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. ACM, 691--702. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Dan Bogdanov, Liina Kamm, Swen Laur, and Ville Sokk. 2016. Rmind: a tool for cryptographically secure statistical analysis. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Dan Boneh and Hovav Shacham. 2002. Fast variants of RSA. CryptoBytes 5, 1 (2002), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Fons Bruekers, Stefan Katzenbeisser, Klaus Kursawe, and Pim Tuyls. 2008. Privacy- Preserving Matching of DNA Profiles. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2008 (2008), 203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Yangyi Chen, Bo Peng, XiaoFeng Wang, and Haixu Tang. 2012. Large-Scale Privacy-Preserving Mapping of Human Genomic Sequences on Hybrid Clouds.. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium et al. 2015. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 7571 (2015), 68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium et al. 2007. Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 447, 7145 (2007), 661.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Caitlin Curtis and James Hereward. 2018. DNA facial prediction could make protecting your privacy more difficult. (2018). Retrieved May 06, 2018 from https://theconversation.com/ dna-facial-prediction-could-make-protecting-your-privacy-more-difficult-94740Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ivan Damgård, Yuval Ishai, and Mikkel Krøigaard. 2010. Perfectly secure multiparty computation and the computational overhead of cryptography. In Annual international conference on the theory and applications of cryptographic techniques. Springer, 445--465. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Emiliano De Cristofaro, Sky Faber, Paolo Gasti, and Gene Tsudik. 2012. Genodroid: are privacy-preserving genomic tests ready for prime time?. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society. ACM, 97--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Cynthia Dwork. 2011. Differential privacy. In Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security. Springer, 338--340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Craig Gentry and Dan Boneh. 2009. A fully homomorphic encryption scheme. Vol. 20. Stanford University Stanford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kristian Gjøsteen. 2006. A new security proof for Damgård's ElGamal. In Cryptographers' Track at the RSA Conference. Springer, 150--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ian J Goodfellow. 2014. On distinguishability criteria for estimating generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6515 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Melissa Gymrek, Amy L McGuire, David Golan, Eran Halperin, and Yaniv Erlich. 2013. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 339, 6117 (2013), 321--324.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Yacov Y Haimes, Warren A Hall, and Herbert T Freedman. 2011. Multiobjective optimization in water resources systems: the surrogate worth trade-off method. Vol. 3. Elsevier.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Petr Holub, Morris Swertz, Robert Reihs, David van Enckevort, Heimo Müller, and Jan-Eric Litton. 2016. BBMRI-ERIC Directory: 515 biobanks with over 60 million biological samples. Biopreservation and biobanking 14, 6 (2016), 559--562.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Grace Hui Yang and Sicong Zhang. 2018. Differential Privacy for Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 777--778. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Karthik A Jagadeesh, David J Wu, Johannes A Birgmeier, Dan Boneh, and Gill Bejerano. 2017. Deriving genomic diagnoses without revealing patient genomes. Science 357, 6352 (2017), 692--695.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Somesh Jha, Louis Kruger, and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2008. Towards practical privacy for genomic computation. In Security and Privacy, 2008. SP 2008. IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 216--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Aaron Johnson and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2013. Privacy-preserving data exploration in genome-wide association studies. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 1079-- 1087. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Liina Kamm, Dan Bogdanov, Sven Laur, and Jaak Vilo. 2013. A new way to protect privacy in large-scale genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics 29, 7 (2013), 886--893. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Christoph Lippert, Riccardo Sabatini, M Cyrus Maher, Eun Yong Kang, Seunghak Lee, Okan Arikan, Alena Harley, Axel Bernal, Peter Garst, Victor Lavrenko, et al. 2017. Identification of individuals by trait prediction using whole-genome sequencing data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 38 (2017), 10166--10171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Antonio Regalado. 2018. 2017 was the year consumer DNA testing blew up. (2018). Retrieved May 06, 2018 from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610233/2017-was-the-year-consumer-dna-testing-blew-up/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Md Nazmus Sadat, Md Momin Al Aziz, Noman Mohammed, Feng Chen, Shuang Wang, and Xiaoqian Jiang. 2017. SAFETY: Secure gwAs in Federated Environment Through a hYbrid solution with Intel SGX and Homomorphic Encryption. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.02577 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sean Simmons, Cenk Sahinalp, and Bonnie Berger. 2016. Enabling privacypreserving GWASs in heterogeneous human populations. Cell systems 3, 1 (2016), 54--61.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Latanya Sweeney, Akua Abu, and Julia Winn. 2013. Identifying participants in the personal genome project by name. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott. 2016. Blockchain revolution: how the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Penguin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Caroline Uhlerop, Aleksandra Slavkovic, and Stephen E Fienberg. 2013. Privacypreserving data sharing for genome-wide association studies. The Journal of privacy and confidentiality 5, 1 (2013), 137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Marten Van Dijk, Craig Gentry, Shai Halevi, and Vinod Vaikuntanathan. 2010. Fully homomorphic encryption over the integers. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 24--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Peter M Visscher, Naomi R Wray, Qian Zhang, Pamela Sklar, Mark I McCarthy, Matthew A Brown, and Jian Yang. 2017. 10 years of GWAS discovery: biology, function, and translation. The American Journal of Human Genetics 101, 1 (2017), 5--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. ShuangWang, Yuchen Zhang,Wenrui Dai, Kristin Lauter, Miran Kim, Yuzhe Tang, Hongkai Xiong, and Xiaoqian Jiang. 2015. HEALER: Homomorphic computation of ExAct Logistic rEgRession for secure rare disease variants analysis in GWAS. Bioinformatics 32, 2 (2015), 211--218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Andrew C Yao. 1982. Protocols for secure computations. In Foundations of Computer Science, 1982. SFCS'08. 23rd Annual Symposium on. IEEE, 160--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Fei Yu, Stephen E Fienberg, Aleksandra B Slavkovic, and Caroline Uhler. 2014. Scalable privacy-preserving data sharing methodology for genome-wide association studies. Journal of biomedical informatics 50 (2014), 133--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Enabling Privacy-Preserving Sharing of Genomic Data for GWASs in Decentralized Networks

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              WSDM '19: Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
              January 2019
              874 pages
              ISBN:9781450359405
              DOI:10.1145/3289600

              Copyright © 2019 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 30 January 2019

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              WSDM '19 Paper Acceptance Rate84of511submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate498of2,863submissions,17%

              Upcoming Conference

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader