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!

The Race To $1,000 Human Genome Sequencing

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the race-for-the-cheap dept.

Medicine 153

ericjones12398 writes "Just one decade ago, sequencing an entire human genome cost upwards of $10 million and took about three years to complete. Now, several companies are racing to provide technology that can sequence a complete human genome in one day for less than $1,000. 'A genome sequence for $1,000 was a pipe dream, just a few years ago,' said Dr. Richard Gibbs, director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine, 'A $1,000 genome in less than one day was not even on the radar, but will transform the clinical applications of sequencing."

cancel ×

153 comments

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

Designer Humans? (1, Interesting)

LostCluster2.0 (2637341) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137261)

Cheap sequencing is a little scary to me. How close are they from creating a person from picked genes and how does that affect evolution?

Re:Designer Humans? (5, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137301)

How close are they from creating a person from picked genes

Actually quite far, mammals cloning suffer some problems that cheap sequencing will don't help solving.

how does that affect evolution?

Evolution ? Of humans ? Since the beginning of medicine, since we save the weak and the sick, evolution is not a natural process anymore, but something we control ourselves as a civilization.

Cheap sequencing, on the other hand, is a very good news to raise the size of human data that we have. Medicine will improve thanks to that. There is still a lot to understand, and the more data we have, the better.

Re:Designer Humans? (0, Flamebait)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137349)

"Cheap sequencing, on the other hand, is a very good news"

Not to mention the next time a nationalist socialist regime takes power they will have a really easy time identifying the people they want to put in the concentration camps.

If you get your DNA sequenced you should keep it in the back of your mind, what might someone with a racial superiority agenda do with it some day.

Re:Designer Humans? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137377)

impressive , three posts till a nazi mention

Genome Sequencing (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40139039)

I hope for the day when we can get mobile kits that can be used for sequencing genome of all types of fauna / flora that are on this planet

At the way of the degradation of our planet's ecology, more and more species are dying out

If only someone can come out with el-cheapo gene sequence kits that are mobile, that can sequence genes of all types of flora / fauna, then, perhaps, we can collect the genetic sequence of as many species as we can possibly gather, before they disappear all together

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137435)

If you get your DNA sequenced you should keep it in the back of your mind

Yes, indeed.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137461)

Funny thing is: Racial superiority based on dna will be very difficult. Even with basic stuff like STRs you have a continuum and not distinct groups. Throw in Epigenetics and all the rest and the genome becomes really difficult to grasp. No, the next dictator will do as the last: Throw in everyone he and his doen't like...

Re:Designer Humans? (3, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137547)

Not sure how accurate it is but the rudimentary DNA testing National Geographic does appears to be quite good at spotting basic ethnicity, especially Ashkenazi Jews, and they do something far less than full sequencing.

My family tree includes a Cherokee Indian and it come up with a pretty big blank on that one, but there probably isn't a very big sampling base for that while there probably is a big sampling base for Ashkenazi.

Even if its not entirely precise it will almost certainly be more precise than measuring facial features, or relying on genealogy like the Nazi's did.

One thing is a certainty that whatever race the next master race picks, the party leadership should probably get their own DNA sequenced first to make sure they are a member. It was fairly common for aspiring Nazi's to discover they had Jewish blood in their family trees.

P.S. If you do get your DNA sequenced, also remember you are making a decision for all of your relatives and descendents to expose their genetic history too.

Re:Designer Humans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138649)

Racial superiority based on dna will be very difficult. Even with basic stuff like STRs you have a continuum and not distinct groups.

It is not like skin pigmentation breaks down into distinct groups. I don't think that's what the problem is.

Re:Designer Humans? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137579)

"Not to mention the next time a nationalist socialist regime takes power they will have a really easy time identifying the people they want to put in the concentration camps."

We don't need a DNA profile, you cretin.

We have already pre-sorted them and deposited them into
government housing projects. We also know where they live, because that
information is linked to the receipt of welfare checks. Computers
and databases will make it easy this time, just as in the 1930s.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137619)

"We don't need a DNA profile, you cretin."

Obviously, since my cretinism is due to a dietary deficiency and not a genetic defect you insensitve clod.

Re:Designer Humans? (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137783)

Nazis don't care about the genetics. They care about scapegoating people powerless to fight back. And then using their example to terrorize each and any other group they construct as the next target. None are spared.

BTW "nationalist socialist" countries are everywhere. The US has always offered "socialism" (government enforced wealth redistribution) mainly to its richest, and is about the most nationalist country behind N Korea. The UK, Norway, Switzerland and many other European countries are pretty socialist, though more equitable in the wealth redistribution source/destination, and are so nationalist they refuse to join the EU. Japan is pretty nationalist, and more socialist than the US.

If you're going to scare people with "nazi", just say "nazi". Stop trying to scare people about socialism, as if the Nazi socialism was representative of socialism any more than East Germany's "People's Republic" represented its people. Nazism was founded on propaganda, and sympathetic propaganda outlets continue to peddle its slanders today.

Re:Designer Humans? (2)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137947)

I was all with you until you made the claim that we redistribute weath to the richest. You can badmouth them all you want, I prefer to hope to be one of them, and I know damn well if the top 10% pay 70% of the tax burdon (true) than the distribution of weath is not going in their favor

Ill say it again a "tax break" is NOT giving money to the rich, its simply taking less money from them

Re:Designer Humans? (1, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138309)

Of course we redistribute wealth to the richest. The biggest tax expense is the military, which the richest suck up like oxygen, no matter how bad for security or our economy (to say nothing of health, life or limb). The second biggest tax expense is on medical care (which overlaps a lot with the military), which is spent on doctors who are among the richest (at $172K general, $275K specialist, they make 7-11x the median income), and pharmacos which are among the richest both as workers and as stockholders. Oil corps get $4 BILLION in tax expenses a year, which is a lot even when they're reporting $10B annual profits before the handout. Then there's the $TRILLIONS in handouts to the banks, their executives, top employees and shareholders, which are both by definition and in practice the richest of the rich.The $BILLIONS in US foreign aid is mostly spent on American products; they're sold abroad by the richest, who arrange that cozy loop.

The top 10% pay 70% of Federal income taxes, but state taxes are mostly regressive (so tax the rich less), and the other substantial taxes like Social Security and sales taxes are purely regressive, so tax the rich less. While the rich have all their income above about $107K (most of their total) protected from the approximately 10% SS tax. The top 10% of wage collectors [ssa.gov] got over $2.46 TRILLION in 2010, out of only about $6.01T total wages, almost 41%. But the amount of equity trade income that the other $10T in the US GDP pays out a year is vastly more paid to that top 10%, who pay something like half the tax rate on their capital gains than people do on regular income.

Taking less tax money from the rich is giving free government services to them. Apart from all the direct subsidies, the rich get far more government services, including security, the courts that are where they transact so much business, and all the R&D private labs have abandoned to the public to pay for instead that they immediately harness into products and even less tangible sources of wealth.

When you said "I prefer to hope to be one of them" you said it all. That motivation is what keeps most Americans who bother to think about the racket hoping it will continue. Of course the vast majority will never be anything but the victims of the racket.

Re:Designer Humans? (2)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138691)

and I know damn well if the top 10% pay 70% of the tax burdon (true) than the distribution of weath is not going in their favor

Without comparing how much wealth the top 10% have it is meaningless to suggest that because they pay 70% of the taxes that the distribution of wealth is not in their favor. Estimates [google.com] I've seen show the top 10% having around 3/4 of the wealth so they pay 70% of the taxes and have 75% of the wealth. Or the bottom 90% have 25% of the wealth and pay 30% of the taxes.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138807)

and our bottom 50% pay no taxes, which i guess you could say screws us in the 50%-90% range, but plain and simple the largest redistribution of wealth does not go (meaning no money was taken from you or I and given to "the rich") the rich, but it goes to pet projects. The military, one of the few things the constitution protects the procreation of funds for, SS and medicare, something it does not.

Re:Designer Humans? (4, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40139003)

That argument is nonsense. It is a standard talking point by the people waging this class warfare thing on the side of the rich.

Nearly everyone who works in this country pays payroll taxes which range from 10-12.5% since Regean jacked them in the 80's. Payroll taxes alone are nearly as high a percentage as the 15% rich people pay on capital gains.

Then there is sales tax, the lower classes spend most of their money, while the rich invest most of theirs so the poor once again pay a disproportionate burden of these which is why its called a regressive tax. The rich want even more sales taxes (aka Value Added Taxes(VAT's) because they regressively punish people who spend and give the rich a free pass

Payroll taxes used to be a couple percent before Reagan jacked them. Social security in particular started producing huge surpluses then that were used to fund Federal budget deficits for decades, in Reagans case to squander money on weapons that were never used. The so called "Trust fund" was completely squandered. To pay for social security and medicare now we either have to tax people some more, borrow it or slash benefits.

Most seniors who retired in before the 90's put almost nothing in to SS and Medicare and are getting windfall returns. People who started working in or after the 80's have been paying taxes through the nose for programs that will be bankrupt and probably gone by the time they retire. It has become a massively regressive tax on young working people to support often affluent seniors.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40139053)

Indeed the 50%-90% are getting screwed from both ends. The bottom half have 2.5% of the wealth so they are also do not pay their fair share of taxes. So if it breaks down that the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes on 75% of the wealth and the bottom 50% pay nothing on 2.5% of the wealth then the 50-90% pay 30% on 22.5% of the wealth. It looks like the middle class is taking on 2.5% of the tax burden for the bottom 50% and 5% for the top 10%.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138523)

"Nazis don't care about the genetics"

Doc that is just silly and you know it, did you actually believe that when you wrote it? Every aspect of their doctrine was fixated on eugenics and race. Its something Americans choose to forget but eugenics was very well established in the U.S. during the same period especially with elements of America's upper class.

Nationalist can be defined several ways but the term applied to nationalist political parties usually centers around a fixation with a nations historically dominant race and protecting it from other races and their influence. Hence in Europe now most nationalist movements are targeting Muslims which have moved in to many European countries in large numbers taking low wage jobs, and becoming the target of the wrath of nationalist parties. The rising French, Hungarian and assorted other right wing nationalist parties are targetting Jews again as well. Apparently substantial numbers of Jews are emmigrating from France to Israel recently due to concerns about the rise of neo Nazi movements there.

Nationalism can also be referring to flag waving, patriotism, and the arrogant presumption that your nation is superior to all others which is presumably what you are referring to when you say the U.S. is nationalist, but its not exactly the same thing as nationalist parties that are focused on racial issues.

The U.S. is somewhat challenged in sustaining a true nationalist movement because it is so ethnically diverse, but it it does have its skinheads, KKK and assorted fringe groups. The U.S. was also pretty deeply antisemitic in its own right during the first half of the twentieth century and that was main stream especially in the upper class. More recently the fixation, especially by Republicans, on illegal immigrants(i.e. Hispanics) would be more like a nationalist political movement exploiting racial issues and tensions, exploitonh the tensions caused by the fact that whites will eventually be in a minority in the U.S. if current demographic trends continue.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137829)

First off, really? Nazis are what your brain goes to immediately when hearing about a medical breakthrough?

Moreover, in case there was a kernel of real concern behind your trolling, please, name for me a single powerful technology which could NOT be abused at the hands of boogie men?

"Computers! A NATIONAL SOCIALIST REGIME might use them to SORT PEOPLE based on racial profiling algorithms!!!!"

"Cheap clean energy might be used by A NATIONAL SOCIALIST REGIME to exterminate people!"

"Ink and parchment might be used by A NATIONAL SOCIALIST REGIME to write mean stuff against me!!!

Grow up and stop being paranoid. If we allow -nazis- of all things to gain power again, then we've monumentally fucked up in maintaining our democracy. The price tag on DNA sequencing someone's genome is not going to affect that.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138677)

You are the one being naive my friend. It is simply good sense to explore the down sides of technologies instead of reveling purely in the up side, and have the down side bite you in the ass later.

I guess you are far enough removed from the early twentieth century that you are unaware how nasty eugenics movements were. Most people are vaguely familiar with them at their most horrific in Germany but the naive pretend that something that horrible can't happen again. Well it can. DNA sequencing is a dream come true for eugenics.

Its largely forgotten and brushed under the rug that there were thriving eugenics movements in the U.S. during the same era as Nazi Germany. It was being championed by a lot of rich, powerful, well known Americans and it was being put in to practice and inflicted on people against their will. It included forced sterilizations of people who had defects like retardation which was also a standard practice in Germany.

It is simple realism to recognize that most technologies are, in fact, double edged swords. You are being totally naive if you rush to embrace all the upside and choose to completely ignore the down side. It is human nature that some people will embrace and exploit the down side if they see a gain to be had there.

Cheap, wide spread DNA sequencing will no doubt yield amazing benefits like gene therapies, targeted drugs and maybe even near immortality. Those things should obviously be pursued with gusto.

It is also almost inevitably going to result in someone pursuing genetic engineering to enhance intelligence and physical abilities of humans, which may result in a genetic arms race where people who aren't enhanced are going to be relegated to a deeply inferior status, and those who are enhanced are going to seek to dominate civilization.

DNA sequencing is also almost certain to be used to discriminate against people with genetic defects, by insurance companies to set rates, by parents to abort fetuses, or on the extreme scale to sterilize people with undesirable genetic traits, or target people that are deemed inferior.

Computers are just as much a double edged sword. They bring a world of benefits but they are also enabling massive surveillance states in just about every country on the planet which are being used to target people with dissenting political views with an efficiency that wasn't previously possible.

At the same time they are spawning new tools for political dissent and freedom movements they are also supporting and enabling increasingly totalitarian states. With widespread biometric ID, pervasive CCTV and license scanners, facial recognition it will eventually be impossible for anyone to move, shop, read, eat, watch a movie, without the permission and authorization of a nation state.

Re:Designer Humans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138247)

You know, you can already spit in a cup and be told exactly what percentages of which races you belong to. You don't need a full DNA sequence to determine race. It's pretty easy to determine, even just by looking at someone.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138651)

more likely, we will observe such a large decorrelation between phenotype and genotype that racism will become a stupid joke, and extremist groups will have to pick on ideologies instead.

also, not even the Rudd government would spend 1 grand per person on what amounts to a census.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138873)

"not even the Rudd government would spend 1 grand per person"

The more obvious places you would use it would be to screen people entering elite organizations and the military (like the SS in Germany) or top echelons of a nationalist party or to screen prospective mates prior to marriage to flag genetic defects or undesirable racial history.

If you were sending someone to a concentration camp anyway, no I dont image you would spend 1K on them.

Most people don't know it but eugenics [wikipedia.org] originated in the U.S. and Britain. Germany modeled got it form there and modeled their early eugenics programs, especially forced sterilization, on California's laws and program.

The Rockefeller foundation [wikipedia.org] helped fund the eugenics programs in Germany before the war.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40139027)

what might someone with a racial superiority agenda do with it some day.

It's not going to help the race supremists. As science would have it, race is not genetically determined. It is artificially determined by society. Genetically speaking, race as we know it does not even exist.

I think you have a worthwhile point somewhere, that there may be issues some day with private companies using genome sequencing to filter applicants, perhaps to keep their medical insurance costs lower. So, yes, we must continue to jealously guard our civil rights.

Re:Designer Humans? (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137383)

Evolution ? Of humans ? Since the beginning of medicine, since we save the weak and the sick, evolution is not a natural process anymore, but something we control ourselves as a civilization.

 

Oh it's evolution all right. "Natural" or not, it's the same thing. We're selecting for traits that are advantageous at the point in time the selection occurs. In the case of the 'weak' or 'frail' we are making a conscious selection to keep these folks around for whatever reason. In the long run, it may help or hurt if the selection pressure on humans changes. Perhaps allowing kids who were born premature, who would not have survived except for the intervention of modern medicine, to survive and breed will pass along some genes that allow for their kids to survive in a high CO2 environment (or what ever). You don't know. Any time you select genes you're evolving.

Remember, evolution doesn't move in any particular 'direction'. Newer isn't better, just more adapt to the local environment. Change the environment, change the needed adaption and life goes on.

Nature cares not.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137417)

Exactly.

Evolution will keep working unless we start just making clones. Even if every human is born from a test tube, there will be still evolution, in the form of say, parents selecting which genes they deem more fit, and the environment and biology will keep rejecting those that aren't compatible enough with life or the environment.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137475)

Lab straints of E. coli have a bone to pick with you. They reproduce through "clones" and evolution still occurs. Even with clones, nothing's perfect, and there's variation within the population.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137491)

Lab straints of E. coli have a bone to pick with you. They reproduce through "clones" and evolution still occurs. Even with clones, nothing's perfect, and there's variation within the population.

Point.

Though I meant clones in the "clone army" sense, like if some nightmarish dictator decides that from now on, new people are made by producing a million copes of the "perfect factory worker" template.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137539)

Except for the fact that we aren't adapting. Like the GP posted, modern medicine has all but stopped human evolution, because we have no selection pressures. If anything, we're de-evolving, because people with genes who would not be procreating in centurys past, actually do nowadays. Who knows how many genetic disorders would have died off by now if not for modern medicine.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

vivian (156520) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137805)

There are many famous people who were reportedly sickly children - who survived because of healthcare available at the time.
If they had not been supported by the technology avaialble at the time, society would have been the poorer for it - and arguably, humanity would not have advanced to the point it is today.

I myself was born 14 weeks prematurely, and would certainly have been doomed even 50 years ago. I have yet to make any earth shattering contributions to humanity, but I certainly don't count myself as an evolutionary failure - I am reasonably fit and have solid abilities in working with technology - though 500 years ago being good in electronics and software development would have been an entirely useless skill.

To talk of "de- evolving" because we have been able to keep people alive through technology is nonsensical - as long as you are fit enough to reproduce (with or without assistance) you are by definition meeting the criteria to be fit enough to survive, given the current environment.

Of course there would have been many more who were too busy just getting enough to eat or find a handy cave to live in, if it weren't for technology too, and they too would have been unable to survive without technology.

How many berry bushes are there to eat around you, and how many nice caves do you know you could move into (and beat all the other people who also wanted to use these same resources) if you had to compete for shelter and food without technology?

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138697)

14 weeks? luxury. my wife was born 16 weeks prem :)

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137811)

"De-evolving" = evolving.

Evolution is only the change in a genome over time. The human genome increasingly contains genetic values that it had less of before, as they were less able to reproduce. That is evolution. It's "de-evolution" only according to your values, which don't count in measuring genetic change.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137841)

What? Seriously, what? People with genes would not be procreating? If it wasn't for modern medicine, people wouldn't be getting sick? What?

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137959)

wost part about that is the people who would have been "selected out" in years past are far more likely to be the ones keeping their inferior genes going, while the top of the line genes are less likely to procreate.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138689)

modern medicine developed alongside more sophisticated warfare and mass transportation amoung other things.

so drugs could fix the tuberculosis that would have killed you, but you didn't look before you crossed the street...

when there's life that's not in total isolation, there will be selection. just not the "surviving in the wilderness" thing, as there's not a lot of wilderness left for most of the population (which is good as we're not really adapted to it these days).

Re:Designer Humans? (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137859)

Current evolutionary theory (punctuated equalibrium) though holds that species are typically static in terms of evolution. You only get real change when new species pop up and old species die off. Natural selection does very little in stable populations of species. You might be tall, and you might mate with a tall member of the opposite sex, and your offspring might be taller than average, but they have a better chance of mating with someone of average or below height. Unless you get reproductive isolation, you're not going to get much directional change.

You're not getting advantageous change, but you're not going to get disadvantageous change either. It will likely be a wash, with no change in ANY direction.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137459)

Evolution ? Of humans ? Since the beginning of medicine, since we save the weak and the sick, evolution is not a natural process anymore, but something we control ourselves as a civilization.

It's not just our evolution we control. Allow me to introduce you to dogs and cattle.

Humans have been controlling evolution for tens of thousands of years. And we're not special. Predator species control evolution of their prey, etc.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137487)

"Actually quite far, mammals cloning suffer some problems that cheap sequencing will don't help solving."

These are only a problem for ethical researchers. If you don't mind making a few hundred mutated duds, and then just breeding from the healthy ones, it's easy. Been done for a number of species, humans are no different aside from awkwardly long gestation and time to sexual maturity. The field is far too difficult and expensive (Lots of equipment) for some Mad Scientist to dabble in a basement laboratory though, and multi-million-dollar grants don't come easy

Re:Designer Humans? (2)

Blahah (1444607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137623)

You're confusing evolution with natural selection. Natural selection is just one mechanism by which evolution can occur.

Re:Designer Humans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138971)

Medicine will improve thanks to that.

Not necessarily. These days, medicine only effectively improves if it is profitable. I offer as a case in point that diabetes has been cured (make note of the date). [canada.com] But, as the cure for diabetes is not going to be nearly as profitable as insulin sales, especially in the US, the chances of a cure ever being approved or even acknowledged in the US by advertising controlled media or Big Pharm controlled government agencies are slim to none. What's great about $1000 sequencing, at least to medical companies, is it can be sold for $10,000 or more... which is affordable enough that insurance can pay for it. I'd like to hear more about the practical applications... though they aren't necessary for me personally to be interested in such technology. Discovery itself is rewarding to mankind as a whole, if not to an individual for-profit company. I wish that medical companies weren't run like Microsoft or Adobe, but they truely are: "Buy our new expensive patented drug that does the same thing as the last drug we sold that is now cheap because the patent on it has just run out. The more expensive drug is better!" Its not cynicism when that is reality.

Re:Designer Humans? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137317)

sequencing is to creating a fully synthesized human as taking a picture of a skyscraper is to building it.

how does that affect evolution

LOL a pretty good one line summary of civilization is "replacing evolution with something else" or "civilization is the subversion of evolution" or "evolution and civilization are opposites". If you have laws and hospitals, evolution is pretty much on the way out.

Re:Designer Humans? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137345)

Evolution is simply the description of the effect of the environment on species over time. Change the environment (e.g. introduce civilization) and evolution continues, it's just responding to different pressures.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137385)

Sequencing is more like getting the assembly instructions for the skyscraper in a foreign language rather than simply taking a picture of a skyscraper. There is a lot left to be translated but it gets us a good portion closer to the final goal.

Re:Designer Humans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138977)

Sequencing is more like getting the assembly instructions for the skyscraper in a foreign language rather than simply taking a picture of a skyscraper. There is a lot left to be translated but it gets us a good portion closer to the final goal.

Nope, there's a lot more to be done. Even with the dna sequence, there's a lot of other things that affect whether genes are actually expressed. DNA can be methylated, or the histones that the dna is wrapped around can be modified, etc. Look at epigenetics. Geneticists have been discovering a whole range of ways that DNA function is altered by other factors and these other factors can be passed down from parents to children outside of the DNA sequence.

Re:Designer Humans? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137325)

Decoding the genome =! reintroducing changes. So no, you don't get human walks in - Gene Enhanced Creature walks out of the boutique DNA store.

It's actually not clear exactly what you get. Likely not much for clinical medicine just yet. More likely a boon to the rest of biology. Imagine being able to sequence little bugs / plants / exciting and unusual critters from your pond scum in a hour. That allows you to break open biological systematics so that we can really create finely detailed maps of the ebb and flow of genetic material over the planet.

You could also find out if your sister was really your sister, or indeed even human. But you could do that now with SNP (single nucleotide polymorphisms) for a couple of bucks and a Priority Mail envelope.

Re:Designer Humans? (2)

godrik (1287354) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137361)

Actually, you are not that wrong about a Priority mail envelope. Researcher can now compress genomes to very small sizes. Small enough to fit an email attachment :
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/2/274 [oxfordjournals.org]

Re:Designer Humans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137565)

The envelope is for mailing the DNA (eg spit).

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137769)

They should use lossy compression. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Designer Humans? (2)

gringer (252588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137371)

How close are they from creating a person from picked genes and how does that affect evolution?

Choosing a fertilized egg based on its genetics is already possible through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. To do this, you need in-vitro fertilisation. This was the situation that was portrayed in Gattaca. If you have sex to get babies, you're stuck with randomness within the limits of your (and your partner's) genes.

In 2005, it was possible to genotype about 5 different genetic variants from a single cell. Now it's possible to do a few tens of thousand, as long as you're willing to deal with a bit of error (you need the whole genome to be amplified up to readable amounts first). I expect that the oxford nanopore technology will make single-cell full genome sequencing a possibility without whole-genome amplification.

Re:Designer Humans? (1, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137503)

Added bonus: It makes the catholic church very angry.

Well, I consider it a bonus. Even most of the rest of the pro-life movement doesn't object to PGD in relation to serious conditions any more.

Re:Designer Humans? (4, Insightful)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137581)

The graphs in the article are just jaw-dropping. This one shows how the cost per genome should drop if sequencing followed Moore's Law, versus how the cost per genome actually scales ahref=http://www.genome.gov/images/content/cost_per_genome.jpgrel=url2html-18366 [slashdot.org] http://www.genome.gov/images/content/cost_per_genome.jpg>.

With the introduction of next-generation sequencing, the costs have actually dropped much faster than you'd predict if it followed Moore's Law. If it's possible to keep that pace up, then we can expect a $1000 genome in 2014-2015, and a $100 dollar genome two or three years later. My guess is that within 10-20 years we could see the widespread use of genetic screening of embryos for genetic diseases. Right now, this all seems very sci-fi. Like something out of Brave New World, Gattaca, or the Eugenics Wars in Star Trek. But unlike a lot of sci-fi, this stuff isn't fictional because it's technologically difficult/impossible, like a faster than light drive, or a flying car. It's sci-fi because it's too expensive to do right now, but that's going to change rapidly within our lifetimes. The development of tests for Down's Syndrome has already led to a dramatic reduction in the number of children born with the condition, it only follows that the development of new tests will have similar effects with other disorders.

This raises a lot of very thorny questions. Say a fetus tests positive for a mutation that is strongly associated with early-onset Alzheimer's disease. What's the moral choice? Is it moral to abort the fetus and spare them and their loved ones the suffering of Alzheimer's? Or would having that life be better than never being born at all? Or would you be willing to take the bet that in the next 30 to 60 years, they develop the therapies to cure or prevent the disease?

It gets more complicated. What if the fetus tested positive for a gene associated with schizophrenia? It might seem cruel to bring someone into the world knowing that's what they had to face. But this is where the story of genetic determinism put forward by modern medicine breaks down. Schizophrenia has a genetic component, true. What's remarkable is that among identical twins (100% shared DNA) the disease is found in both twins less than 50% of the time. Clearly, there's a very strong environmental component (another striking thing that backs this up is that schizophrenia rates are significantly higher in developed countries than in developing countries). Getting these genes makes you vulnerable, true, but there's a better-than-even chance you won't develop the disease at all. Is a less than 50% chance of developing schizophrenia enough to abort a fetus over?

The issues raised by gene sequencing have been pretty hypothetical up until now. It was too expensive and difficult to look at what genetic cards you'd been dealt. But that's going to change.

Re:Designer Humans? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137745)

Troll? WTF?! Slashdot moderation is even more broken than APK's fragile psyche.

The scary thing is the artificial womb (2)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137893)

What scares the shit out of me is the prospect of an artificial
womb. It would allow a country to select its best soldier, then
enhance his DNA and then, with artificial wombs, make
1,000,000 clones.

The first country to do that will have a huge military advantage, which
will led to other countries doing the same resulting in a clone arms
race.

I don't think it will take more than 50 years for the artificial womb to
be created. Will civilisation survive it?

Re:The scary thing is the artificial womb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138615)

While this hypothetical country is waiting the 2-3 decades it takes for the 1,000,000 clones to mature, what's to stop their enemy simply conscripting 2,000,000 and attacking right away?

Re:The scary thing is the artificial womb (1)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138755)

While this hypothetical country is waiting the 2-3 decades it takes for the 1,000,000 clones to mature, what's to stop their enemy simply conscripting 2,000,000 and attacking right away?

2-3 decades!? 15-year-olds can already fight. And that is without genetic enhancement to grow faster.

Second: the country that does this will also have a large regular army... The clone battalion will be an extra.

Re:The scary thing is the artificial womb (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138837)

zerg rush!

yeah... it'll be a while before humans can be engineered to be better than much cheaper hardware.

with self-driving cars able to identify people, i can imagine a self-driving tank that is more able to perform IFF than most soldiers in high pressure situations.

i think we'll have ED-209s before artificial wombs.

Cool (2)

revelation60 (2036940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137265)

My genome would make an awesome screensaver!

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137369)

My genome would make an awesome-er screensaver!

Even more hypocondriacs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137277)

Will lead to an exponential increase in hypocondriacs
Also, selective breeding would become much more common and people would be prevented from going into careers,etc if their genes arent a good match (someone with a high probability for Alzheimers may be prevented from entering a knowledge based workforce for example)
not to mention the preventive measures that may scale up massively. Right now Americans have peanut free towns, this disease may spread to the rest of the world as well

Re:Even more hypocondriacs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137533)

Alzheimers affects people in advanced age, usually after they retire. I understand your point but you gave a bad example.

Legal system too (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137343)

'A $1,000 genome in less than one day was not even on the radar, but will transform the clinical applications of sequencing."

Cheap enough that it'll transform the legal system too. "Guess who's not your daddy?"

Re:Legal system too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137407)

Also, it's getting towards the point where it could become a standard test to run at birth... with related issues of awkwardly revealing paternity.

Re:Legal system too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137617)

It can't reveal anything about paternity or non-paternity unless the dad has his DNA sequenced too.

Still, I see your point - this is why some places (e.g. Germany, France, New York state) restrict access to paternity testing (you need court orders in those places).

Re:Legal system too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137695)

Still, I see your point - this is why some places (e.g. Germany, France, New York state) restrict access to paternity testing (you need court orders in those places).

Oh wow, that's ass backwards. It should be legally impossible for a man to take on responsibility for a newborn without first having been informed whether he is the father of the child. So not impossible to take on responsibility for someone else's child, but impossible to do it without knowing about it. This is exactly the situation that women enjoy and there is no reason to continue the inequity when modern technology makes that not necessary.

Re:Legal system too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137803)

It's not the father having access that is the problem. It's other people who go about interfering.

I am not aware of all laws everywhere, but anywhere that has updated their legal code does allow the alleged father to offer a dispute.

Some places still have the marriage presumption but that's old law before paternity testing.

Re:Legal system too (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137809)

Plenty of guys paying for kids who aren't theirs. My favorite is that when a putative father began having doubts a few years later, he got a test. It showed he was not the father. Court said "tough shit, we already decided you are". Here's one case [lawvibe.com] . It's not the one I was looking for, but it's close enough. My favorite is the case where DNA proved man A was not the father. Further testing showed it was man B. Man A and woman got divorce. Man A pays child support. Woman marries man B. Man A turns up the above mentioned DNA results. Man A still stuck with the bills, even though the biological father is now married to the mother and raising the child.

Condoms men. Seriously. Or vasectomy.

Re:Legal system too (1)

WillHirsch (2511496) | more than 2 years ago | (#40139019)

(you need court orders in those places)

It should be legally impossible for a man to take on responsibility for a newborn...

How do you expect to make a man take responsibility for a newborn except by court order?

Re:Legal system too (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138857)

best solution to that is a fertility calendar and tickets to an isolated location.

I work for one of these companies... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137355)

... and the oddest day of my life recently was finally hooking up the sequencer software to the literature database-- both of which were running locally on my laptop. I was on a city bus with no WiFi and suddenly I could sequence yeast and mosquito genomes, and find out what kind they were.

The problem with this article is it discuses the $1000 sequencing part, which is all data analysis, but not the other $1000, the chemistry part. That, too, is coming down in price, just not as fast.

Re:I work for one of these companies... (2)

structural_biologist (1122693) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137669)

You've got it backwards. The cost of materials for sequencing is dropping to $1k, but the data analysis (stitching together all of the short DNA reads to assemble a full genome sequence) still costs well in excess of $1k. For example, a 2011 Chemical and Engineering News [acs.org] article suggests that the cost of the analysis was still ~$100k.

$1000 (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137485)

Cost of chemicals? Machines I think cost in the neighborhood of 100-300k. Doing a complete sequence in less than a day would be great but still not really practical. Is a lab going to have 100 of these bad boys or are only ~250 people (assuming labs don't work weekends) going to get sequenced a year per hospital or whatever? Gene sequencing in general isn't very scientific they don't start with a testable hypothesis and then do measurements. They try to test everything and then come up with a hypothesis to explain it. Having your genes sequenced completely is most likely not necessary. What is needed is a better understanding of what is important and just sequencing those parts. I don't need a $1000 test to tell me what colour my hair is.

Missing the big picture (2)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137523)

Sequencing a gene is not like some kind of one-time exam. Your genes don't change. Once they are sequenced, that's it - you can use the results forever.

If it was only $1000 or even $5000 to sequence your genes, it is more than a worthwhile investment, as you can then compare your sequence against new things constantly being discovered as the state of gene science improves.

Like others have pointed out, at this kind of price point a lot of parents would simply opt to have their child sequenced at birth, to hope to prepare them for a safer future.

Re:Missing the big picture (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137553)

Actually, your genes change slightly, for example when damage causes cancer. If you baselined yourself at childhood, you could find the cancer genes later in life by sampling the tumor. Your genes are always slightly drifting during your life (replication damage) and merging between generations (reproductive changes).

Re:Missing the big picture (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137977)

Uhhh, not true. Genes change, due to retrotranspons moving genes around and retroviruses (there's a lot of them) adding new genes to your DNA. It is now known through sequencing that every brain cell in your brain has a unique genome, for example. Your genome is also radically altered throughout your time as a zygote, it turns out. There comes a time when the DNA stabilizes, but for a while it is prone to all kinds of mutations.

Any human that was not born as a twin likely carries at least two significantly different genomes from the very start. It turns out that humans produce far more twins than expected, but that one of the twins is then fully absorbed into the other - usually as an organ - very early on. When this process starts late or is incomplete, you get "siamese twins".

Re:Missing the big picture (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138091)

Not to mention not all genes are active not sure if the sequencing would also say which ones are active too.

Re:Missing the big picture (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138145)

No it wouldn't, as most of that data is kept outside of the genome itself.

Re:Missing the big picture (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138417)

As mentioned by another poster genes change, they also get more or less activated depending on environmental factors, chance events etc. Everyone would likely have hundreds of things that their gene says they are more likely to get in their lifetime. They would then have to be continually monitored to see if those genes have become active, would get paranoid when having kids. "Oh my God you have the same really low risk gene as I do and it has been shown in a couple contradictory papers to have a slight correlation to a higher than average chance of clumsiness we shouldn't have kids then just to be safe.". Not to mention the big brother risk where something is shown to make it more likely that you'd be a criminal. I could see the FBI saying something like "Oh every serial killer has this gene lets have these people all report in once a month with what they did and were they were "just in case". Even if only 0.001% of people with that gene turn into killers they'd still piss all over your freedom because they know that the killers are all in that group somewhere. "What you don't want to make our streets safe? Do you have something to hide?"

Or the more basic: insurance companies just use the hundred things that you might get based on your genes as an excuse to jack your premiums. "You have no family history, well you've just been lucky but you are a higher risk because you have this gene so we are going to have to charge you more."

Re:$1000 (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137531)

I don't need a $1000 test to tell me what colour my hair is.

I am bald you insensitive clod.

Re:$1000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138987)

I don't need a $1000 test to tell me what colour my hair is.

I am bald you insensitive clod.

What does that have to do with OPs hair color?

Not just for humans (4, Insightful)

Blahah (1444607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137599)

It's worth pointing out that it's not just human genomes which will be cheap. I'm excited about the applications this has in biology at large. If sequencing costs continue dropping at anything like their current rate of decrease, whole genome sequencing will soon be opened up to all sorts of interested parties. That has huge implications for taxonomy and phylogenetics, conservation, crop breeding and plant science as a whole.

If genome sequencing costs drop, that means other types of sequencing costs drop too. For example RNA-Seq, which lets us see which genes are currently active at a given point in time, in a sample from an organism. Things which are currently conceptually possible but prohibitively expensive, such as comparing the active genes across hundreds or thousands or species in a particular state, or across a species in hundreds of different environmental conditions, will become possible. Our understanding of life processes will deepen by an order of magnitude, with inevitable benefits in biotech, medicine and agriculture.

Re:Not just for humans (1)

the gnat (153162) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137831)

That has huge implications for taxonomy and phylogenetics

One of the most exciting potential projects I've seen recently is a proposal to sequence 10,000 vertebrate genomes [genome10k.org] , which would sample nearly every genus. One of the project leaders, David Haussler, has previously worked on extrapolating backward from known mammalian genomes to guess at the genome of the common ancestor (100-plus million years ago). That was with several orders of magnitude less data - if they actually pull this project off, we'll be able to understand vertebrate evolution at a level of detail unimaginable today. As usual with these kind of projects, of course, the data analysis is going to be far more difficult than the actual sequencing.

Moral issue not just sci-fi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137649)

A $1,000 genome in less than one day ...

Then what? We map every gene sequence to a human trait: Intelligence, promiscuity, penis size, Parkinson's disease. That leads the way to genetically modified life forms (GELFs). That idea has appeared before ('Dark angel', 'SeaQuest DSV'). Or your DNA defines your job: See the movie 'Gattica' (1997). There is another side-effect. Ultimately insurance companies take only healthy customers: Then the healthy customers leave because they know they don't need health insurance.

Re:Moral issue not just sci-fi (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40139061)

there's some overzealous mods in this thread. these are questions that need answers, even if there's a certain level of paranoia involved.

insurance companies in particular should not have access to this data. it should be covered by the strictest of privacy law.

Superb Bird of Paradise smile - WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137735)

Well, this might fit into this topic: can someone explain how the Superb Bird of Paradise evolved to display a smiley face with its feathers to attract females? I mean, birds don't smile!! WTF?!? That's just so weird, and so intriguing. See it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dx2CUMtZ-0

Still a $100K Sequencing Bill (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137757)

Even when a complete genome sequence run costs the lab $1000, it's going to cost the patient $100,000 on their bill. Because nothing exists in the medical industry to reduce the prices charged to patients. Even insurance corps' leveraging their own and their cartel's buying power to reduce prices paid to medical providers then slap their own extreme charges and fees (and waste) to raise the retail cost back up.

Though not as much in Europe. So Europeans will get to consume American medical exports like quick, cheap sequencing technology. Evolution in action.

Re:Still a $100K Sequencing Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138999)

Even when a complete genome sequence run costs the lab $1000, it's going to cost the patient $100,000 on their bill. ...

Though not as much in Europe. So Europeans will get to consume American medical exports like quick, cheap sequencing technology.

And you put your finger on why health care is so expensive in the US. Americans pay top dollar for health care while european countries prohibit medical companies from charging excessive prices.

The thing I find funny about the health care debate in the US is that all the talk is about who should pay for health care. I've heard nothing about reducing the cost of medicines and treatments.

Of course on the other hand developing and testing medicines and treatments is expensive, somebody has to pay for it and the US health system seems to be stuck with the bill.

Complete waste of money (-1)

VernorVinge (1420843) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137817)

I fail to see how scrambling your DNA in a centrifuge and recording the resulting base pairs would have any value to medical science. It's sounds cool in theory, but if you read between the lines, it's the equivalent of putting each letter of a novel into a scrambler and then charging you a thousand dollars for the results. We are at least 30 years away from true gnome mapping. For any of this to be of value, you would have to map an entire gene with all the dna base pairs sequences intact, along with their location approximate to each other in three dimensional space. Don't settle for a Model T from these snake oil salespeople. Wait until the science is actually viable.

Synthetic Womb? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137843)

We can sequence genes. We can edit the sequence of many genes we've identified to switch the phenotype they express among meaningful choices. We can edit retroviruses to make them edit genes from A to B in living cells. We can combine sperm and egg IVF to produce a blastocyst. We can even insert full cell nuclei into collected foreign eggs, which we can cultivate into a blastocyst in a lab. We can convert skin cells into egg cells for that purpose.

How close are we to a synthetic womb that can gestate a full blastocyst into a newborn baby?

Re:Synthetic Womb? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40139081)

surrogacy is here now, and quite affordable. like everything else, we can outsource it to a developing country.

keeping accurate score (1)

seqnerd (2649579) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137845)

When we say sequence a 'genome' for $1k, $10k, etc., we need to specify what constitutes "done". If 100% completion (no gaps) is the bar, then even the initial sequencing of the first genome (for $1bn) isn't done yet. But if the goal is to, say, learn the sequences of the most informative parts of the genome (common variants, say) then we are already way past the $1k barrier.

Dawn of a New Discovery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138175)

Sequencing the human genome is like Columbus discovering the Americas --

(1) He didn't know where he was going.

(2) He didn't know what he found.

(3) He didn't know where he'd been when he returned.

Any expectation of gleaning specifics from your genome sequencing is just like Queen Isabella expecting Columbus to bring back Google Maps of America.

Only $1000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138187)

Does the cost include printing and delivery of your genome?

3.2e9 vs 1e2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138203)

So what if we can read 3.2 billion base pairs for each human if we can only measure about 100 things related to their actual health. We've been sampling 1.2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP arrays) on large populations of diseased and healthy individuals for around five years now and haven't come up with much. The geneticists answer to this is to collect more genetic data (full genome sequencing), and their approach is entirely wrong. You could collect an infinite amount of genetic information and you'll still come up short if you can only collect a few data points related to someone's disease/health status. Biomarker research is the path forward, but sadly Francis Collins directs the NIH so we'll have to wait a while for any real progress.

It may not mean as much as the hype suggests (1)

davidannis (939047) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138351)

because most diseases seem to be caused by multiple rare mutations.
From a recent NY Times article

Though the cost of decoding an individual’s genome is fast approaching a mere $1,000, the difficulty of interpreting its mutations now seems much greater than before, raising doubts as to how soon genome sequencing will become a routine medical test. But Dr. Pritchard said personal genomics may soon be valuable in specific situations, like pediatric cases, cancer and the genetics of response to drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/science/many-rare-mutations-may-underpin-diseases.html [nytimes.com]

Cheap Sequencing (1)

robbiedo (553308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138635)

All your base are belong to us.

Re:Cheap Sequencing (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40139087)

all my funny mods are already spent :(

Brace yourself (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138667)

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3phkay/ [quickmeme.com]

Like we do not have enough trouble with crappy reads right now, frameshifts right in the middle of universal proteins, etc.

Individual sequencing not all great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40139041)

Given all of the stuff discovered regarding epigenetics [wikipedia.org] , getting your sequence probably won't be too useful since I don't think most of the 2nd gen sequencing method capture epigenetic information. However, this would probably be useful in treating cancer or getting more research on it. I can see an oncologist getting your dna sequenced and then sequencing the tumour cells to determine where mutations occurred and then picking drugs that target the pathways that the mutations are affecting. I think some types of cancer are already tested to see if certain genes have been inactivated to determine sequences so it's certainly something that's coming down the pipeline.

In regards to tumours, seeing which genes are inactivated or mutated in order to trigger cancers may allow certain types of cancers to be grouped and treatments that apply to one cancer in the group may be applicable to others in the group. It could potentially provide treatments for rarer cancers that hasn't had much clinical research on it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?