New Method To Revolutionize DNA Sequencing

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.'"

Re:99.3% accurate?

[Maximum Prophet]

How many errors are introduced during normal human reproduction? The dogs they've cloned so far are less than 99.999% identical.

Link: Google Cache version

[Anonymous Coward]

(from Google Cache) Reading DNA sequences from single molecules of polymerase using nanotechnology [74.125.45.132]

Re:99.3% accurate?

[MyLongNickName]

This assumes that the method simply has a random chance of getting each data point wrong. What if it is something systematic with the method that causes it to read one gene wrong? In other words, it reads the gene as a 'T' every time despite it really being an 'A'. No matter how many tests you run, it will still result in a wrong answer.

Re:99.3% accurate?

[Adriax]

Or you could run a parallel processing setup, 3-5 sequencing chips all given the same sample at the same time. More expensive, but you'd get that effective 100% rate in the half hour time.

$5k for a genetic sequencer that could give effectively 100% accuracy in half an hour would be pittance for pretty much every hospital in the US.
Hell, the first malpractice lawsuit it prevents (detect a disorder that would make a commonly used treatment crippling or fatal to the patient) would pay for the machine 1000 times over.

Grammar ambiguity

[nsayer]

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

Does that mean that the chip costs $1000 or that each human genome processed costs $1000?

Re:99.3% accurate?

[amalyn]

Systematic errors could be identified by correlating results with other DNA sequencing results.

Using a large sample, like the proposed Personal Genome Project [unsure if they have gotten in touch with any of those who expressed interest in participating] could be useful in showing any systematic mis-reads, as long as the Personal Genome Project is using another method to sequence the participant's DNA.

It does not rock

[pnotequalsnp]

Considering current sequencing technology generates terabytes of data per day (see the Sanger center), then wouldn't it be efficient to maximize the amount of information per pixel (i.e. per byte)? This method is actually is much worse (orders of magnitude) than the current method. There are many other problems with what they do, but hopefully the cash infusion can last them another 2 years until the write a paper like this. BTW, the say that appropriate camera tech. will be available in 2-5 years, but they're ready now! They might be buying time...