4 ms·
They needed to do 17 samples at a time to be financially viable. I suspect it's even worse than that and it's just cheaper if you already know what you're looki
by Asbostos 11y ago
They needed to do 17 samples at a time to be financially viable. I suspect it's even worse than that and it's just cheaper if you already know what you're looking for and do it the normal way.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago> * They needed to do 17 samples at a time to be financially viable.* Is this an actual fact, or a comedic exaggeration?
- ghshephard 11y agoUnderestimate - from the article, "The team can also analyze many patients at once. To do that, they fuse a unique barcode sequence to the viral DNA from each individual sample, before mixing them together and running them through VirCapSeq-VERT. After the system does its thing, the team can check the barcodes to work out which sample each virus came from. “We can do up to 21 at a time, which makes it financially viable,” says Lipkin." So, this is the sort of thing that you would do in bulk with a bunch of samples, not on a retail one-at-a-time basis.
- sehugg 11y agoDNA sequencing is currently done in batches, dozens of samples to a plate. It's cheaper that way.
- tkinom 11y agoThe DNA Sequencing related techs seem to advancing even faster than Semiconductor techs. I used to work for Applied-biosystem to work on their 2nd gen DNA sequencer ~1996. At that time, sequence the human genome cost ~$1 billion. Today it is < $1000. At that speed, in 10-20 years. They might be able to sequence all the virus in your blood and provide real time info about them with the latest Apple Watch. :-) Still have doubt? Take a look at what high school kid (lady) did to detect ebola.... http://www.techinsider.io/olivia-hallisey-won-the-google-science-fair-with-a-fast-test-for-ebola-2015-9 http://www.techinsider.io/olivia-hallisey-won-the-google-sci...