Slashdot Mirror


Pocket-Sized DNA Reader Used To Scan Entire Human Genome Sequence (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A few years back, a company called Oxford Nanopore announced it was developing a radically different way of sequencing DNA. Its approach involved taking single strands of the double helix and stuffing them through a protein pore. With a small bit of current flowing across the pore, the four bases of DNA each created a distinct (if tiny) change in the voltage as it passed through. These could be used to read the DNA one base at a time as it wiggled through the pore. After several years of slow progress, Oxford Nanopore announced that its sequencing hardware would be as distinctive as its wetware: a USB device that could fit comfortably in a person's hand. As the first devices went out to users, it became clear that the device had some pros and cons. On the plus side, the device was quick and could be used without requiring a large facility to support it. It could also read very long stretches of DNA at once. But the downside was significant: it made lots of mistakes.

With a few years of experience, people are now starting to learn to make the most of the devices, as demonstrated by a new paper in which researchers use it to help sequence a human genome. By using the machine's long reads -- in one case, nearly 900,000 bases from one DNA molecule -- the authors were able to get data out of areas of the human genome that resisted characterization before. And they were able to distinguish between the two sets of chromosomes (one from mom, one from dad) and locate areas of epigenetic control in many areas of the genome. In light of all the distinct information it can provide, the machine's error rate is seeming like less of a problem.

16 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Easy Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just do multiple passes and match the commonalities. Should be an easy way to sort out the errors and make it much more accurate

    1. Re:Easy Fix by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's what we do now with short reads. It kind of works, but only because we understand in a lot of detail about how errors happen.

      For example, 454 sequencing tends to get the number of nucleotides in a repeat sequence wrong. So, for example, CTAAAGT might be read as CTAAAAGT. Illumina sequencing doesn't have that problem, but tends to degrade along the length of the read. So the last few nucleotides are more likely to be wrong than the first few.

      And this is just read errors; with short-read sequencing, there are also PCR amplification errors, which is why we think nanopore sequencing will do better. When you start "unwinding" a chromosome, the parts that you unwind first tend to get amplified more than the parts that you unwind nearer to the end. Some sequences are amplified more than others for chemical reasons, and the relative error might depend on the specific revision of reagent chemicals.

      We don't really understand enough about nanopore sequencing to be able to develop appropriate algorithms to match long-read sequences together. We don't even know what the right number of multiple passes is yet. And that's important, because genomics and transcriptonomics are important, but the bigger issue for researchers is economics.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    2. Re:Easy Fix by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      Yes and no. Paired end reads give you either longer reads or longer range information. The problem isn't fixed because as the technology gets better we just push up the read length.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Easy Fix by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Just do multiple passes and match the commonalities. Should be an easy way to sort out the errors and make it much more accurate"

      Just like an idiot calculating stuff, making him do it multiple times and he'll will be a stable genius.

  2. Re:GATTACA, anyone? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just remember it was a cautionary tale and NOT an operations manual.

    Don't be ridiculous! I mean, everyone knows that 1984 is the real instruction manual. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  3. I would be interested by waltlaw · · Score: 2

    in finding out what kinds of DNA is in my pocket,

    1. Re:I would be interested by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      String or nothing!

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  4. I have one of these... by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... and it (kinda) works as advertised. It is also VERY low cost (compared to the previous generation of sequencing machines which cost 700K and up, it costs about $1K). The main disadvantages are that 1) it's still inaccurate, maybe only in the ~90% accuracy rate (not a good thing when you're reading 3B base pairs) and 2) the reagents and flow cell used are expensive (so on big jobs you're almost better off using a traditional sequencer). Still, it does do LONG reads which gets over one of the big disadvantages of the previous gen. machines.

    Even with a high error rate, if the errors are UNBIASED then you can overcome them by simply sequencing the same area over and over again to come up with a consensus. This is called "coverage" and usually a factor of 10X is used but if the sequencing technology is cheap enough why not do it 30X or 100X or more?

    For us citizen scientists, you'll still need a way of processing and purifying your DNA, I'm trying to get a Bento Lab (hopefully shipping in a month or two). Also the technology will hopefully get better and better, the next version will supposedly have the nanopore membrane separate from the flow cell so the whole thing won't have to be replaced when the membrane is used up. (The version after THAT supposedly will a tiny device directly attachable to an iPhone with an even tinier replaceable membrane so maybe it'll become really cheap to sequence DNA; at parties even :). Finally, I think they may be moving to freeze dried or otherwise non-perishable reagents so the storage requirements will become a little easier (I have a dedicated battery backed freezer at home).

    Now with CRISPR kits for only $40, there's no end to the fun (and disasters) that we can do with our basement genetic experiments!

    I should mention you'll need a little lab experience and know how to use a pipette and have steady hands! Go take some courses at the local community college and you'll be good to go. (Of course in order to interpret your results you'll need to study BioInformatics, my specialty :)

    1. Re:I have one of these... by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it's still inaccurate, maybe only in the ~90% accuracy rate (not a good thing when you're reading 3B base pairs)

      Former de novo assembly software writer here. Do we have a good handle on the kinds of errors that you tend to find? You know how 454 reads tends to miscount repeat sequences and Illumina tends to decline in quality along the read. Do we understand where the errors come from?

      Also, are the errors correlated? If you try to sequence the same 500k read twice, will it make errors in the same places?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    2. Re:I have one of these... by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      Those algorithms, largely based on De Bruijn graph methods, are specifically designed to handle the short-read, high-coverage case. There's no reason to think that they will work well on the long-read low-coverage case.

      You might be better off just BLASTing them together.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  5. Re:Wrong use. by gringer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Direct RNA sequencing can be done with the MinION as well, no hardware change needed:

    https://store.nanoporetech.com...

    Depending on how important it is to sequence all RNA, polyadenylation prior to sequencing might also be needed.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  6. Q&A from a previous time by gringer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I did a Q&A on this sequencer on SoylentNews a couple of years ago:

    https://soylentnews.org/articl...

    The technology has improved substantially since then. Feel free to ask me any more questions about the sequencing. Although I'm not an author on this paper, I'm fairly familiar with the sequencing project that was done, and am happy to answer any general questions you might have on this technology.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
    1. Re:Q&A from a previous time by gringer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some errors are random, some are systematic. The systematic errors tend to be either small shifts in long stretches of the same base, or interesting features of the DNA (e.g. methylation), and there are a few people trying to work out what those interesting features are.

      A key obstacle to getting people interested in nanopore sequencing (or other types of observational sequencing) is that we have been locked in for so long to the idea of DNA as a sequence of letters that we forget there are other things attached to it that also have functional roles. Nanopore is more accurate when matching sequences at the signal/electrical level, but almost no one is doing that yet.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    2. Re:Q&A from a previous time by gringer · · Score: 2
      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
  7. Re: Use this to scan a woman's vagina by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

    Slashdot trolls in 2017 are fucking lame. Come on man put some effort into it. This is not /b/, itâ(TM)s Slashdot and our trolls traditionally put effort into their work

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  8. Misuse around the corner by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Employers will use such under the table to screen candidates for medical and/or genetic problems. I've worked for slimebags who would happily cheat at anything to gain an edge.