Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday July 30 2017, @02:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-do-you-know-how-much-you-don't-know? dept.

The feat made headlines around the world: "Scientists Say Human Genome is Complete," The New York Times announced in 2003. "The Human Genome," the journals Science and Nature said in identical ta-dah cover lines unveiling the historic achievement.

There was one little problem.

"As a matter of truth in advertising, the 'finished' sequence isn't finished," said Eric Lander, who led the lab at the Whitehead Institute that deciphered more of the genome for the government-funded Human Genome Project than any other. "I always say 'finished' is a term of art."

"It's very fair to say the human genome was never fully sequenced," Craig Venter, another genomics luminary, told STAT.

"The human genome has not been completely sequenced and neither has any other mammalian genome as far as I'm aware," said Harvard Medical School bioengineer George Church, who made key early advances in sequencing technology.

[...] FAQs from the National Institutes of Health refer to the sequence's "essential completion," and to the question, "Is the human genome completely sequenced?" they answer, "Yes," with the caveat — that it's "as complete as it can be" given available technology.

[...] Church estimates 4 percent to 9 percent of the human genome hasn't been sequenced. Miga thinks it's 8 percent.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/20/human-genome-not-fully-sequenced/

I'm glad this is finally getting some coverage. A few years ago I looked into the human genome to prove to myself it didn't contain a certain sequence, and found this was impossible since ~10% of it was missing. When they talk about "sequencing a genome" it is total false advertising.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gringer on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:41PM

    by gringer (962) on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:41PM (#546889)

    60x longer is a far stretch

    No, it's not. Nanopore can get quite a lot of sequences over 60kb, and Nick Loman has managed a end-to-end-mappable sequence that is over 700kb in length.

    The challenge is now in sample prep, not sequencing. It's quite difficult to keep DNA intact enough for really long reads with most library preparation methods-

    --
    Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3