Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Method To Revolutionize DNA Sequencing

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the start-saving-up-to-buy-a-clone dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A new method of DNA sequencing published this week in Science identifies incorporation of single bases by fluorescence. This has been shown to increase read lengths from 20 bases (454 sequencing) to >4000 bases, with a 99.3% accuracy. Single molecule reading can reduce costs and increase the rate at which reads can be performed. 'So far, the team has built a chip housing 3000 ZMWs [waveguides], which the company hopes will hit the market in 2010. By 2013, it aims to squeeze a million ZMWs [waveguides] onto a single chip and observe DNA being assembled in each simultaneously. Company founder Stephen Turner estimates that such a chip would be able to sequence an entire human genome in under half an hour to 99.999 per cent accuracy for under $1000.'"

6 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. 99.3% accurate? by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's, what, 28 incorrect base pairs out of 4000? I'm not a biologist, but is this considered an acceptable error rate? Even the hopes of 99.999% accuracy seems really awful when there are about 3 billion base pairs in a human genome.

    I realize that we aren't going to be trying to make a cloned copy from this data, but what uses is this "good enough" for?

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:99.3% accurate? by imamac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I realize that we aren't going to be trying to make a cloned copy from this data...

      What makes you so sure? Who knows where this will lead?

    2. Re:99.3% accurate? by ccguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, depends if those 28/4000 errors are the same in each run or not.

      If they can sequence the whole thing in less than 30 minutes one time with a 0.001% "read" error rate, my guess is that they can get it probabilistically near 100% correct in 2 hours or so.

      By the way, what's the current error rate? Is it 0? (just asking)

    3. Re:99.3% accurate? by scorp1us · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a saying from the old sailing days. "Never set sail with two compasses". One is ok, three is better. But never two. The paralysis from not knowing which is right is far worse than being wrong and correcting later.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  2. Kicks ass on Moore's Law... by djupedal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Company founder Stephen Turner estimates that such a chip would be able to sequence an entire human genome in under half an hour to 99.999 per cent accuracy for under $1000.

    I think this qualifies as a true 'technological singularity' :)

  3. Re:error correction by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. It's called "natural selection". :P

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.