4 ms·

The article kind of says that though, the very beginning of the article explains how it was assumed that after we sequenced a genome, we'd make fast progress.

by swalsh 11y ago

The article kind of says that though, the very beginning of the article explains how it was assumed that after we sequenced a genome, we'd make fast progress. However what's actually starting to make a difference is the sequencing of greater number of genomes (more data), and the improvement of our filtering (identification and algorithms). Basically, the big difference is a lot of hardwork, and refinement. There's not actually any mention of a single breakthrough discovery.

ThePaco 11y ago
I think I get where the rant is coming from though. Even though the article isn't talking about a single discovery, it's more the idea that the world will turn one day and it will suddenly be the age of
- api 11y ago
  It's just a click bait title really.
- azernik 11y ago
  I feel like the "And this time it's probably real" is kind of a tongue-in-cheek reference to that sensationalism.
nextos 11y ago
I think it's not only about genomes. Actually, cells have a lot of state. See [1] for a basic, slightly old, CS-biased explanation. That's how a single genome yields an incredibly varied repertoire of cell types. We need to work a lot on understanding those epigenomes to then get a chance to pinpoint genetic causes of disease. [1] http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/ http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
- kens 11y ago
  Yes, cell state is really important. My view is that nobody is looking at the big picture of state - cells store state in many different ways, with time periods of milliseconds to years. It's probably my CS background, but I think figuring out all the relevant state of a cell is important and neglected. Epigenetics is a part of this, but not enough.
  - haihaibye 10y ago
    RNAseq, the measure of abundance of transcribed genes at a particular cell state is one of the most common assays done with next gen sequencing. That's the big one then of course there is also miRs, transcription factors, methylation, histone marks, chromatin conformation capture. As someone with a CS background who has worked almost 5 years in bioinformatics, one thing to realise is if you think something obvious is not done, either you're missing the right search term on pubmed or there's some horrible lab issue that makes it really hard (and we need a new assay/tech)

by swalsh 11y ago

ThePaco 11y ago

I think I get where the rant is coming from though. Even though the article isn't talking about a single discovery, it's more the idea that the world will turn one day and it will suddenly be the age of

api 11y ago
It's just a click bait title really.
azernik 11y ago
I feel like the "And this time it's probably real" is kind of a tongue-in-cheek reference to that sensationalism.

nextos 11y ago

I think it's not only about genomes. Actually, cells have a lot of state. See [1] for a basic, slightly old, CS-biased explanation. That's how a single genome yields an incredibly varied repertoire of cell types. We need to work a lot on understanding those epigenomes to then get a chance to pinpoint genetic causes of disease. [1] http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/ http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

kens 11y ago
Yes, cell state is really important. My view is that nobody is looking at the big picture of state - cells store state in many different ways, with time periods of milliseconds to years. It's probably my CS background, but I think figuring out all the relevant state of a cell is important and neglected. Epigenetics is a part of this, but not enough.
- haihaibye 10y ago
  RNAseq, the measure of abundance of transcribed genes at a particular cell state is one of the most common assays done with next gen sequencing. That's the big one then of course there is also miRs, transcription factors, methylation, histone marks, chromatin conformation capture. As someone with a CS background who has worked almost 5 years in bioinformatics, one thing to realise is if you think something obvious is not done, either you're missing the right search term on pubmed or there's some horrible lab issue that makes it really hard (and we need a new assay/tech)