Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Tech Promises Cheap Gene Sequencing In Minutes

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-i-want-it-now dept.

Biotech 121

Zothecula writes "Sequencing an entire genome is currently a highly complex, time-consuming process – the DNA must be broken down into segments and replicated, utilizing chemicals that destroy the original sample. Scientists from Imperial College London, however, have just announced the development of a prototype device that could lead to technology capable of sequencing a human genome within minutes, at a cost of just a few dollars. By contrast, when sequencing of the genome of Dr. James Watson (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) was completed in 2007, it had taken two years and cost US$1 million."

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

but (0)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643438)

can it sequence as fast as slashdotters can claim first post?

Re:but (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643448)

No, but it can identify the gene for compulsive behaviour.

Re:but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643452)

Wow. Mod parent +/-1 Obvious First Poster is Obvious

Re:but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643858)

LULZ! Frist psoter is frist! OMGPONIES!

Re:but (3, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643614)

can it sequence as fast as slashdotters can claim first post?

Nope, but it is following an exponential cost curve [synthesis.cc] . Get it cheap, get it fast, hook it to some truly impressive computing technology to make some sense out of it and you've got?

1984 looking like the Elysian fields? Paradise? Something in between?

As the old Chinese curse goes "May you live in interesting times".

Re:but (1)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34647288)

Don't worry: The article breathlessly describes strands of DNA zipping through holes and being scanned, but at the end it admits, it's "10 years away", so that means realistically, it'll never happen and they just want more funding.

Re:but (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643852)

what about in comparison to slashdotter accuracy on first post?

basically, how accurate is this thing supposed to be for it's "fast sequencing"?

Re:but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34644596)

If you're into the fast sequencing of spilled genes, maybe you wanted the "stroke period" /. not the "slash dot" /.

- - -
Archibald 'Harry' Tuttle from the movie Brazil:
Listen, this whole system of yours could be on fire and I couldn't even turn on the kitchen tap without filling out a twenty-seven B stroke six... bloody paperwork.

GATTACA Here we Come (1)

clonan (64380) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643450)

Now if we get it down to a second we can use it to control turnstyles...

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643542)

I was thinking more along the lines of Ultraviolet, where a blood sample is used to sign a receipt of sorts: grip pen tightly, it draws a small sample, then sign your signature in blood to confirm identity both via DNA and signature.
Also, it's used standalone as identification, so maybe we could get unforgeable (or at least VERY hard to forge) IDs.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (-1, Offtopic)

clonan (64380) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643612)

Already do [youtube.com]

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643644)

Also, it's used standalone as identification, so maybe we could get unforgeable (or at least VERY hard to forge) IDs.

Not a problem. I can get lots of your DNA. Without you even knowing it.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643696)

Not a problem. I can get lots of your DNA. Without you even knowing it.

Was that you at the glory hole?

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643730)

Also, it's used standalone as identification, so maybe we could get unforgeable (or at least VERY hard to forge) IDs.

Not a problem. I can get lots of your DNA. Without you even knowing it.

I'm guessing you're referring to covertly collected hair or skin samples. If someone's watching who touches them and how, those aren't that easy to get. Also, the DNA is likely to be incomplete or deteriorated from exposure, unlike that extracted from a blood sample or a tissue swab.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (2)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643788)

No, he was referring to covertly collected tissue samples contaminated with certain bodily fluids well-known for containing DNA.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34644002)

And that's why I always eat the evidence. You just can't be too safe.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645328)

You're very flexible.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643672)

Um, DNA can already be custom made, blood proteins might be harder to fake in the right amounts but probably not. Not within reach of your average methhead Identify thieves but probable do able for larger corporations/governments.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645988)

DNA can be produced from sequence data, but it's very expensive. Only short strands can be manufacturered entirely artificially - yeast cells are then used to join them.

I have thought this could be a nifty way to get access to the DNA of long-extinct species though. You don't need a good tissue sample: Just take some old piece that's been degrading for centuries, and sequence it a thousand times. All those different sequences will be corrupt, but not in the same way, so with a bit of computing power you could reconstruct the original. Maybe one day it'll be possible to do a Jurassic Park with it. Dinos are too old, but how about a zoo with dodos?

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643976)

Also, it's used standalone as identification, so maybe we could get unforgeable (or at least VERY hard to forge) IDs.

Sure, as long as the reference database is un-hackable and there's no way to sniff and spoof the digital signature generated from the DNA anywhere along the communication path from the reference database to the end device...oh, wait...

But true, this would make low-tech identity theft much more difficult.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644174)

Simply sequencing a gene is a far cry from matching.

If anything this leads to a whole raft of kitchen table scientists making ridiculous claims of paternity or crimes based on the assumption that because there exists a fast cheep tool to do part of the job, suddenly everyone is Horatio Cane.

YEEAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
 

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644530)

Add big cloud of computers and a cheap 100MBPS line and you can match in two secconds against a database.... or how many megabytes does a genome take? I dont think too many. I think its already well compressed.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646008)

Three billion base pairs, two bits per pair, four pairs per byte... About 750 megabytes.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

kurokame (1764228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644200)

Forgery is almost trivial, particularly when many people assume it's impossible. I can already hop online and order an arbitrary genetic sequence for delivery. Normally, this is used to create short sequences for insertion into a larger genetic strand, but the same tech would let a patient researcher forge an arbitrary DNA sequence under any conceivable test.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643598)

Now if we get it down to a second we can use it to control turnstyles...

I'm more worried about them using it in airports. That will mark the last time I ever fly.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34644150)

Now if we get it down to a second we can use it to control turnstyles...

I'm more worried about them using it in airports. That will mark the last time I ever fly.

You're a wanted criminal?

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (2)

alexborges (313924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644546)

He may be an unwanted normal guy that does not want to be tracked by beaurocrats.

Re:GATTACA Here we Come (1)

kurokame (1764228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644148)

The emergence of MEMS devices for performing PCR and doing chemical analysis makes the development of portable DNA scanners more or less inevitable at this point. The only question is who will get the patent.

The odds are fairly high that in a maximum of 20 years, I will be able to hop on Digikey and buy a DNA scanner IC for a few dollars. Given that it could integrate an appropriate sample collection modality and immediately begin PCR may also significantly broaden what constitutes a viable sample compared to modern DNA analysis which incorporates significant oversampling mainly to ensure that something actually reaches the PCR stage. Blood would always still be the gold standard - but who knows, maybe it could pick up a high-confidence identification simply through contact.

Where's your privacy now? The ease of perpetrating privacy abuses given the modern internet is just the tip of the iceberg. Globalization transitioned from trade practices to information exchange - I can send a packet around the world three times in a fraction a second, and that makes the world a very small place indeed. Data combined is exponentially more informing, and the amount of information you leave scattered around without realizing it just by existing in the modern technologically-augmented social sphere is already massive. In coming years, the difficulty of obtaining an increasing amounts of information which are increasingly invasive is going to drop to nothing. Without active privacy protections with a lot of force behind them, the resulting situation will probably make GATTACA look extremely naive.

let's hope (1)

atfrase (879806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643458)

Let's hope we heed the warnings of sci-fi [imdb.com] .

Re:let's hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643548)

God I hope so. The sooner we can start weeding out the deGenerates the better.

Re:let's hope (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643616)

It should help weed out the slashtard crowd in no time. The world already is crammed with too many basement-dwelling virgins.

Re:let's hope (2)

jargon82 (996613) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644010)

Don't basement-dwelling virgins weed themselves out of the gene pool?

Re:let's hope (1)

asadodetira (664509) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643590)

Go figure: My main complaint about the movie was that ultrafast DNA analysis was unrealistic. What's next?. A device that transmits the sound of explosions in space?

Re:let's hope (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643622)

You know what they say... In Space, no one can hear you complain about Science Fiction.

I'm sorry- gravity (2)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643902)

as in, every time- no matter how bad the power situation ever is, especially when 'shutting down to be electronically insignificant to detection' artificial gravity is always a constant.

Millenium Falcon, Jetstar 1, enterprise, firelfy, pigs in space, hitchikers, galactica, dr. who, farscape, stargate atlantis & Universe, starship troopers, tripping the rift....

Re:I'm sorry- gravity (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644364)

Artificial gravity is never even different on alien spaceships where the alien planet probably had different gravity...

Re:I'm sorry- gravity (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644516)

Babylon 5?

Re:I'm sorry- gravity (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646190)

Partial: Areas of different gravity were spoken of, but no scene was ever shown on a non-earth-gravity station, ship or planet. Fighter ships cleverly avoided a problem by strapping the pilot into a harness tight enough that it's impossible to tell from image alone if they were experiencing gravity or not.

Re:let's hope (2)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643962)

Go figure: My main complaint about the movie was that ultrafast DNA analysis was unrealistic. What's next?. A device that transmits the sound of explosions in space?

The worst part was when they get their DNA analysis results, and its like several sheets of "GAGATTATATGAGAGATAGAGATAG...". Firstly, it would be more like several telephone directories, or perhaps just a list of single mutations. Secondly, it would be meaningless without some extra analysis on top (annotations, basically) even to a geneticist.

Re:let's hope (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644284)

I'm going to have a Kinkos print this GCTA crap from my genome into a big holy book for everyone to study once I get around to setting up that religion where everyone worships me which is going to be after they set up an app to read your genome with a smartphone. I'm hoping to have it start with the book of AAAAAA.

Re:let's hope (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643602)

Because I always go to Hollywood for policy advice! It must be the tremendous respect they show for the truth.

Re:sci-fi (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643608)

"Warning?"

That's an instructional video!

Re:let's hope (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34646130)

Fun Fact: The DNA helix used on the box art is left handed rather than our typical right handed B-DNA.

CSI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643532)

If they can build those in bulk, the CSI episodes are becoming much more realistic

Re:CSI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643584)

Don't worry, I'm sure CSI will find another way to stretch credulity.

Bert & Ernie? (4, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643582)

I can't get too enthused about a prototype of something that might one day lead to another prototype, "up to ten years away".

But the article in the sidebar titled "Breakthrough raises possibility of genetic children for same-sex couples" is at least amusingly illustrated with a picture of Bert and Ernie.

NOT gay (1, Insightful)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643792)

they are not gay! otherwise Bert would have been in the tub with Ernie instead of the duck.

Re:NOT gay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643846)

they are not gay! otherwise Bert would have been in the tub with Ernie instead of the duck.

Maybe it was a duck costume. Gay *furries*, then.

Re:NOT gay (1, Funny)

d'fim (132296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643890)

The duck was male and so was the other duck with Bert in the bedroom and besides it's none of your business what gay couple they swapped partners with anyways.

Re:NOT gay (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645134)

... the other duck with Bert in the bedroom...

That was no duck! That was Big Bird! And, now, Bert knows why he's called "Big".

Yeah, any time now (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643648)

have just announced the development of a prototype device that could lead to technology capable of

The prototype could lead to technology, which could lead to discoveries that could lead to clues that could lead to a one-armed man who could lead to some funding...

What problem were we trying solve again?

I hate over-hyped article titles and summaries.

The ACTUAL research (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643658)

I hate scientific journalism. "New tech promises cheap gene sequencing in minutes" is complete bullshit. When I read interesting news on scientific research, I try to track down the actual research to compare. Usually what's in the media is something like "SCIENTISTS ONE YEAR AWAY FROM CURING CANCER!!!" and the research reads "Behavior of protein XYZ under high pH"

  For those of us here that actually care about this kind of stuff, here is the real information: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/nl103873a

Article citation (5, Informative)

brteag00 (987351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643664)

It drives me nuts when the popular media article doesn't include a citation back to the original research. Here's a link to the article on the Nano Letters website: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/nl103873a [acs.org]

Re:Article citation (1, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644048)

OK, Take a Popsicle stick, scrape it inside your cheek and send the DNA sample to them. They will analyze your DNA and tell you the source of the "anxiety about source less news story syndrome". Hurry, if you are the first, they will name the disease after you.

Re:Article citation (1)

brteag00 (987351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644224)

It's a constant old-media gripe of mine. They linked back to the Nano Letters front page - how much harder would it have been to link straight to the article?

Re:Article citation (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644054)

Hmmm... My quick scan of this failed to turn up any mention of progress toward differentiating between the 4 bases (A,C,G,T) as the DNA strand exits the pore. That's going to be quite a challenge, especially with unlabeled DNA, but it's pretty fundamental to this being used directly for sequencing. Looks like it might be great for fragment sizing in the shorter term, though.

Re:Article citation (1)

brteag00 (987351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644180)

Yeah, the article just talks about the fabrication and characterization of the nanopores, and demonstrates that they can detect the translocation of single nucleotide pairs. If they had actually been able to identify the nucleotides, it would published somewhere bigger than Nano Letters.

Re:Article citation (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644130)

Thanks for the citation. The most striking thing about the device is that it is non destructive and is reading one DNA/RNA strand at a time one base pair at a time. When you have that level of non destructive access, we could do manipulation at base pair level. Initial break through would be in cutting out the head or tail of a strand by ramping up the tunneling to cut the strand. Then at some point they could come up with devices to snipe out a section of DNA out or splicing DNA from two different strands. At that point we might see genetic engg snipping out a gene from one organism and insert it into another organism.

It is scary.

Re:Article citation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34644230)

You should read up a standard molecular biology textbook. Taking out genes from one organism and putting it into another is standard for mice and plants since 15 years.

Re:Article citation (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646246)

A nano-splicer wouldn't be revolutionary, though I imagine it might be able to reduce the time required a bit compared to the current enzyme approach.

Re:Article citation (2)

Shirakawasuna (1253648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644928)

Not sure which part of that is scary. I did that yesterday, just not with a nanopore machine.

Sounds plausible. (3, Informative)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643774)

FTFA

At the heart of the Imperial College device is a silicon chip, with a 50-nanometer nanopore bored through it. DNA strands are propelled at high speed through this hole, and get their coding sequence read by a “tunneling electrode junction” as they come out the other side. This junction consists of a 2-nanometer gap between two platinum wires, with an electrical current passing between them, across the gap. The current interacts with the unique electrical signal given off by each of the DNA strand’s base codes, and the resulting data is then processed by a computer to determine the complete genome sequence. The chips are reportedly quite durable, standing up to repeated uses and washings with no loss in performance.

Doesn't sound too outrageous. I suppose this is one advantage of only two base pairs.

Re:Sounds plausible. (1)

Zouden (232738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645690)

Four base pairs.

Re:Sounds plausible. (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645838)

I thought there were four bases that made two pairs. Or does their orientation count? Or am I completely forgetting my high-school biology?

Re:Sounds plausible. (2)

Zouden (232738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646076)

Yes, the orientation counts because the pairing is (temporarily) broken when the DNA is read by the cell. Only one strand is read.

Re:Sounds plausible. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646276)

Orientation does indeed count.

http://www-jmg.ch.cam.ac.uk/tools/magnus/molecules/nucleic/dna1.jpg

Look closely. Notice assymetric. One of the helixes is not like the other.

CSI: Genome (1)

lordmage (124376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643842)

Dr. OneEye: "We have a match on the Genome of the DNA we found and its a HUMAN"

Detective BRassBalls: "How did you find it that fast?"

Dr. OneEye: "With this new Instant Genome from As Seen on TV". "We can solve cases in minutes instead of 40 minutes with commercials and it only cost 19.95 with S&H".

Detective BRassBalls: "You total NERD. Do you know what you have done?"

Dr. OneEye: "No What?"

---- Later ----

Detective BRassBalls: "Now we solve cases in 5 minutes with 55 minutes worth of commercials and make 1/10th the pay we once did"

Dr OneEye, just learning his pay cut, just stares into nothingness and you hear the Instant Genome whirring in the background....

Minutes? (2)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643904)

The first one was also done in 'minutes', 1,051,897 of them.

Moore's Law of DNA (4, Insightful)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643956)

Ignoring any one specific advance in technology, the cost per base pair of sequencing DNA has dropping exponentially. The cost to sequence an entire human genome has gone from billions of dollars in 1990 to about $40,000 in 2010. By 2015, it will probably cross the $1000 barrier.

By 2020, it will likely be under $100 - at which point it might as well be a standard part of a person's medical file.

By 2030, it could under $1 - amateur biologists could start collecting genomes like poleroids while hiking.

By 2040, it could be a fraction of penny - cough on a sensor, get a readout of all the microbes in your lungs, what strain they are and, by looking at the specific mutations between generations and comparing to a database of everyone else's microbes, the likely person who infected you.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (0)

swb (14022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644000)

By 2040, oil will be, what, $500 a barrel -- if there's any "open" market at all and its not all locked up as part of a handful of nations' strategic military reserves.

Meaning the machine will be so ridiculously expensive to make due to even small dependencies on oil & oil-based products that it will never get built.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644418)

Oil is what $50/barrel or not far off? Going to $500 is a 10fold increase. Multiplying GP's numbers by 10 doesn't make the huge change that you claim.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (1, Offtopic)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644550)

90 USD/barrel today.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (0)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644438)

Energy remains constant at about 10x the minimum wage per "barrel of oil" worth of energy.

There are many alternatives waiting to come on line at 12x the minimum wage. Some of them are dropping in cost.

If it is $500 a barrel in 2050, then the minimum wage would be $125 an hour.

Energy costs have roughly doubled since the mid 80's.

At current rates (~$8->$16->$32), $32 is a likely rate so a likely cost would be ~$300 a barrel.
That also fits using oil costs ($80->$160->$320).

Any time oil gets too expensive, there are tons of natural gas, solar, nuclear, plants waiting to come to market.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34645304)

Green freedom [blogspot.com] uses nuclear to basically produce oil at ~$150/barrel, so oil will never get up to $500/barrel.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (0)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646322)

I imagine a lot of those oil-based products can be done without. Remember there was a time when even electronics came in wooden enclosures. Substitutes would be needed for insulation, component packaging, etc... but it's doable. Natural rubber is not derived from oil, and gets you half way there already. Just need to mix in the right additives.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (4, Insightful)

brteag00 (987351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644312)

I don't argue that the cost-per-base of sequence is dropping dramatically - but comparing the output of an Illumina sequencer [illumina.com] (the tens-of-thousands of dollars pricepoint) to the Human Genome Project is misleading. The reason the HGP cost so much is the quality of the reference sequence they produced - the so-called Bermuda standard [genome.gov] , of one error in 10,000 bases. The HGP researchers assembled all those individual sequence reads into an almost unbroken reference of astounding quality and utility.

In comparison, the sequence data people are producing today is crap. The individual reads are 30-80 base pairs and get put together into contiguous runs of only several thousand bases of length, on average. This is good for some kinds of work, but it doesn't give nearly the same picture of the genome that made the original human genome sequence such a masterpiece.

(I'm a genomics grad student. Can you tell?)

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34644448)

(I'm not a genomics grade student)

For all I know, you could be making this crap up. You might even work for the Illumina sequencer company.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (1)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644948)

One step closer to the technological singularity.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (2)

RandCraw (1047302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645000)

Make that $1000 for a genome NEXT year, not 2015. The current cost for a genome (at maybe 5x ocersample) from the Beijing Genomics Institute is about $5000 in bulk, and dropping fast. Speed, reagent cost, oversampling, and completeness (e.g. over 95%) are all improving at super linear rates.

For more, read "The $1000 Genome", printed in mid-2010. It makes clear that gene sequencing technology is The Next Big Thing, and imminent. The question that remains is, how useful will the info prove to be until tech like gene therapy is workable. For now, genomic data is almost entirely a novelty -- mostly good for entertainment value.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645230)

For now, genomic data is almost entirely a novelty -- mostly good for entertainment value.

I suspect that it'll get cost-effective for drug companies a bit before it becomes popular for the general public. 'Sequence once, test for ever' is quite an attractive proposition.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646368)

I imagine a whole lot more attractive to insurance companies - thus the attempts to prohibit the practice before it even comes into use. There are already fears of a future where some people are uninsurable due to genetic predispositions that no insurance company wants to risk playing out.

Re:Moore's Law of DNA (1)

ignavus (213578) | more than 3 years ago | (#34647208)

Ignoring any one specific advance in technology, the cost per base pair of sequencing DNA has dropping exponentially. The cost to sequence an entire human genome has gone from billions of dollars in 1990 to about $40,000 in 2010. By 2015, it will probably cross the $1000 barrier.

By 2020, it will likely be under $100 - at which point it might as well be a standard part of a person's medical file.

By 2030, it could under $1 - amateur biologists could start collecting genomes like poleroids while hiking.

By 2040, it could be a fraction of penny - cough on a sensor, get a readout of all the microbes in your lungs, what strain they are and, by looking at the specific mutations between generations and comparing to a database of everyone else's microbes, the likely person who infected you.

So when will it become an iPhone and Android app?

you fai7 it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643958)

you get distracted TBSD HAD BECOME dying' crowd - startling turn

That much progress in only 3 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34643978)

At that rate maybe I will be able to order my cat-girl sex-slave by 2016!

1 MILLION Dollars! Bwahhh haaa haaa (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643992)

2 years @ $500,000 a year doesn't sound like a lot. In fact it sounds completely implausable for something as valuable as the results they produced. Maybe in the 50's or something.

I wonder how they came up with that figure? I imagine the lab + scientists alone cost that much to outfit and rent; not to mention lawyers and research assistants

Re:1 MILLION Dollars! Bwahhh haaa haaa (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34647170)

whats missing is all the RnD to get their
Like, it costs a billion bucks, give or take, to build a new intel fab plant, but they sell an individual cpu chip for 100 - 1000 order of mag
So, you are right, this is sort of a reagents +salary cost
In any event, it is way, way outdated - the newest instruments like the illumina Hiseq gets a genome for 100K (I think)

However, you really have to ask what is a "complete genome" even today, there are large stretches (sub telomeric repeats, cnetromeres, etc) that are un sequenced
Also we don't ahve good epigenomics (cytosine methylation)

Not a very useful comparison (3, Informative)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644128)

By contrast, when sequencing of the genome of Dr. James Watson (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) was completed in 2007, it had taken two years and cost US$1 million.

Yeah, but nowadays it can be done in a few hours and costs under $10,000. May as well say that the Human Genome Project took 13 years and cost $3 billion - true, but not very relevant.

And we're well on-track for sub-$1,000 genomes in a year or two (without any new breakthrough technologies); which is basically "good enough" for research purposes. As Lincoln Stein pointed out in a recent paper, we're already almost at the point where it costs less to sequence a base pair than it does to store it for computational analysis.

Re:Not a very useful comparison (1)

Arcquist (1100065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645270)

I seem to remember looking into this a while ago and the human genome isn't really as big as I thought it was. According to this nature page [nature.ca] there are 3.4 billion base pairs and since each is only one of 4 values it takes 2-bits per base pair to encode so the entire genome is only 850,000,000 bytes which is 810.6MB (1,048,576 bytes/MB). I don't know about you but the cost to 'store' this in my mind is essentially nothing. There are a ton of places on the web that will easily offer 1GB of storage for free, 1GB USB sticks are frequently given away and if you buy a current HD (non-SSD) the cost of 1GB is less than $0.15.

I welcome the day when sequencing a genome costs less than $0.15...

Re:Not a very useful comparison (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646396)

Wouldn't need even that much: almost all of it's the same in every human. All you need to do is agree on a single 'reference human,' and then store genomes as the difference between this reference and the individual. The reference would be 800-ish meg, but after that each person will only be a couple of megabytes extra.

Re:Not a very useful comparison (2)

RDW (41497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646514)

'...the entire genome is only 850,000,000 bytes which is 810.6MB'

That's about right - the reference assembly from UCSC is 778Mb in their standard .2bit format. That's just a single sequence for each autosomal chromosome plus one each of X and Y, though - you'll need to allow about double that to store your full dipoid genome, so better buy a 2Gb flash drive. On the other hand, if you take the reference sequence as a given and only store the differences between it and yours, you only need about 4Mb!:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996942 [nih.gov]

But raw sequence data is a different matter. To call each base confidently everything has to be sequenced multiple times (it's normal to go for something like 40x coverage on an Illumina machine). And you'll probably have to deal with the files as uncompressed ascii text (or gzip/bz2 at best). When you start analysing the data, you'll need a lot more space to store the alignments to the reference sequence, and you'll need some reasonable computing power to do the processing (which may well take longer than generating the data).

Re:Not a very useful comparison (2)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34647224)

so the entire genome is only 850,000,000 bytes which is 810.6MB

You'd have to include the sequencing data, not just the final call: a single Solexa run generates about 1TB of data (if memory serves) and you need a couple of those for a full human genome at some reasonable coverage.

And it was sort of implied that you're doing something useful with the data, not just sticking it on a thumb drive, which means (relatively) expensive SAN disk space, which is still in the dollars per GB area (including backup costs). The paper I mentioned was making the case for using "cloud" computing for genomic data, so it's very much about these day-to-day operational costs, not abstract "how much sequence can I fit on a floppy" type questions.

Of course at this point sequencing is still more expensive than storage (by about 1000x, given the above numbers), the paper was just pointing out the trend that, while storage costs have been following Moore's law for a few decades now, over the last 6 years sequencing cost has been dropping by half every 5 months. Obviously that's unlikely to hold long-term, it's just a cute extrapolation.

Other advantages! (1)

serutan (259622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644152)

No more long lines at the gene sequencing place!
No more frantically pulling everything out of the glove compartment looking for $1 million in change.
- sigh, that's all I got

This means daddy-O-matic appliances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34644464)

DNA Sequencer Vending machines in convenience stores ?

  Son, let's go to buy some candy.....

A book without punctuation (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644580)

The base pair sequence is nice, yet there is much more to gene expression than that. Two cloned cats can look and act remarkably differently. In embryology, it is known that the same gene can act differently depending on the timing and circumstances of that gene's activation. So bravo for cheap fast sequences, but we will need to know more about gene expression for genomics to bring big changes to medicine.

crowdsourcing your genome (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645166)

Last weeks issue of Nature mentions gene hackers [nature.com] who study newly posted human genomes for interesting DNA. We are somewhere in the "third decade" of sequenced human genomes- that is between 100 and 1000 fully sequenced genomes published so far. There are interesting things remaining to be discovered in this huge mass of data.

No one has shown nanopore sequencing works yet (1)

structural_biologist (1122693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645258)

Here's a small detail that the article leaves for the last paragraph:

“The next step will be to differentiate between different DNA samples and, ultimately, between individual bases within the DNA strand,” said study co-author Dr. Tim Albrecht. “I think we know the way forward, but it is a challenging project and we have to make many more incremental steps before our vision can be realized.”

In other words, they can zip DNA through this device quickly and measure some signal as the DNA passes through, but no one knows yet whether it is possible to extract accurate sequence information from the signal they get. Similar implementations (that admittedly have a less sensitive way of getting a signal from the different DNA bases) have so far failed to see significant enough differences between the DNA bases to be useful for sequencing. It's not clear that this method will work as advertised

Method inferior to others (1)

vsage3 (718267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646090)

Nanopore sequencing has been around for at least a decade in the lab. They admit that their method of using tunnel junctions to detect the DNA cannot even distinguish between different base pairs.

For background, here's the basic idea of a classical nanopore sequencer:

1. Make a solution with ions in it with a very thin membrane separating two different compartments each containing an electrode. The membrane has a very tiny hole (nanopore)

2. Apply a voltage. This will either attract or repel the salt ions, thus you get a detectable current passing through the nanopore.

3. Put DNA in the solution. The hole is hopefully small enough that the DNA can only go through as if stranded like thread through a needle. As the different base pairs move through, they block up varying amounts of the hole, manifesting as small changes in resistance across the hole.

4. Profit

The only real limiter is how thin you can make the membrane. Recently, some researchers used graphene, which is thinner than your average base pair, and so you do not get a resistance that is the convolution of many base pairs blocking up the pore at any given time. For more, google "Dekker DNA translocation through graphene nanopores" to see that they can already detect single pairs - and do it thousands of times a second.

Playing catch-up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34646252)

Pacific Biosciences is already on the market with single-molecule sequencing.

http://www.pacificbiosciences.com/

correct citation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34647080)

I think this is the right paper for those who want to check it out, if you have the super $$ sub to this journal

Letter
DNA Tunneling Detector Embedded in a Nanopore

Aleksandar P. Ivanov, Emanuele Instuli, Catriona M. McGilvery, Geoff Baldwin, David W. McComb, Tim Albrecht*, and Joshua B. Edel*
  Department of Chemistry
  Department of Materials
  Division of Molecular Biosciences
Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, U.K.
Nano Lett., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/nl103873a
Publication Date (Web): December 6, 2010
Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>