| ▲ | How to sequence your own DNA at home(bradleywoolf.com) |
| 34 points by bilsbie an hour ago | 13 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| I wish this had some discussion of the results. The earlier reports about this sensor and process were very mixed. It’s a cool process either way, but I’d like to know how usable the real world output can be. |
|
| ▲ | dwa3592 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is so cool. Thanks for doing this. The fact that we have this in a palm sized object is just crazy. Also, if/when we have a similar sized device for doing CRISPR .... umm i should stop here - it's becoming the plot of Gattaca |
|
| ▲ | mephux 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://www.the-odin.com/whole-genome-sequencing-30x/ If you want it quick and cheap(er) - 599.00 |
| |
| ▲ | drdaeman 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If it's an US-based lab, aren't they subject to CLIA with all its retention requirements? For $7.5k+ you get a guaranteed privacy (as other comments suggest, other properties may vary, but at least the data never leaves your home). |
|
|
| ▲ | whatever1 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What is the accuracy in this ? Aka if I run the experiment 10 times how many differences will i get? I don’t have a physical sense on what would be a good number. |
| |
| ▲ | myhf 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You would get a lot of differences, but the errors would cancel each other out with enough depth of coverage. This technology's baseline accuracy is around 95% per base, so 10x reads of every segment in the sample would give >99% accuracy for each base after aligning the reads with each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverage_(genetics) | | |
| ▲ | Jules-Bertholet 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > so 10x reads of every segment in the sample would give >99% accuracy for each base after aligning the reads with each other This assumes random errors, which IIRC isn't the case for Oxford Nanopore. |
| |
| ▲ | Jules-Bertholet 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oxford Nanopore unfortunately has a high error rate (3-5%) compared to other sequencing technologies. And the errors are non-random |
|
|
| ▲ | metalman 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am very impressed with the, why wait? just do it now approach to the future.
which while not here, IS there. |
| |
| ▲ | dekhn 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Nothing about this is the future. Sequencing at home will not solve any major problems. It's mainly a fun exercise to demonstrate that sequencing has been commodified. |
|
|
| ▲ | bleepblap 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > This is intended to be read by AI Fuck this |
| |
| ▲ | asveikau 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah that's weird. The instructions are not even hard to read. I don't understand what an LLM would add to this. | |
| ▲ | SuperSixFour 3 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Literally left the article to come here and say this. |
|
