4 ms·

Neat, thanks - it's amazing how quickly sequencing technologies have evolved.

mbreese 7y ago
This isn't sequencing... you'd use sequencing to identify novel mutations or strains of the virus. This is a set of known PCR primers that amplify the virus's RNA. You could (in theory) also use a similar approach to identify specific strains of the virus, but this shouldn't be the priority at the moment. While you could have an assay that used sequencing, it wouldn't be nearly as fast or cost efficient.
- VectorLock 7y ago
  This CDC document was an interesting read. I found this part particularly fascinating. >RNA isolated and purified from upper and lower respiratory specimens is reverse transcribed to cDNA and subsequently amplified in the Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR Instrument with SDS version 1.4 software. In the process, the probe anneals to a specific target sequence located between the forward and reverse primers. During the extension phase of the PCR cycle, the 5’ nuclease activity of Taq polymerase degrades the probe, causing the reporter dye to separate from the quencher dye, generating a fluorescent signal. With each cycle, additional reporter dye molecules are cleaved from their respective probes, increasing the fluorescence intensity. Fluorescence intensity is monitored at each PCR cycle by Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR System with SDS version 1.4 software.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Right, sorry...I sort of think of PCR as 'grep for genomes', even though it doesn't really 'read' the DNA.
kylebenzle 7y ago
You mean in the last 20 years? Yeh, it was super fast.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  As someone outside the industry it _appears_ [emphasis there] to have gone from "we can take a few weeks and test you for a specific disease susceptibility" to "place your finger here and then grab a coffee ... sorry for the wait, OK we have details on 100 different diseases now" in a matter of 2 or 3 years.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Yes, that is what I mean. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but 20 years is a very short amount of time if you look back on the history of the advancement of engineering and our understanding of the world. It's very exciting, especially when you look at how little the basic operating concept of computers has changed in the same timeframe.

This isn't sequencing... you'd use sequencing to identify novel mutations or strains of the virus. This is a set of known PCR primers that amplify the virus's RNA. You could (in theory) also use a similar approach to identify specific strains of the virus, but this shouldn't be the priority at the moment. While you could have an assay that used sequencing, it wouldn't be nearly as fast or cost efficient.

VectorLock 7y ago
This CDC document was an interesting read. I found this part particularly fascinating. >RNA isolated and purified from upper and lower respiratory specimens is reverse transcribed to cDNA and subsequently amplified in the Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR Instrument with SDS version 1.4 software. In the process, the probe anneals to a specific target sequence located between the forward and reverse primers. During the extension phase of the PCR cycle, the 5’ nuclease activity of Taq polymerase degrades the probe, causing the reporter dye to separate from the quencher dye, generating a fluorescent signal. With each cycle, additional reporter dye molecules are cleaved from their respective probes, increasing the fluorescence intensity. Fluorescence intensity is monitored at each PCR cycle by Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR System with SDS version 1.4 software.
leggomylibro 7y ago
Right, sorry...I sort of think of PCR as 'grep for genomes', even though it doesn't really 'read' the DNA.

kylebenzle 7y ago

You mean in the last 20 years? Yeh, it was super fast.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
As someone outside the industry it _appears_ [emphasis there] to have gone from "we can take a few weeks and test you for a specific disease susceptibility" to "place your finger here and then grab a coffee ... sorry for the wait, OK we have details on 100 different diseases now" in a matter of 2 or 3 years.
leggomylibro 7y ago
Yes, that is what I mean. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but 20 years is a very short amount of time if you look back on the history of the advancement of engineering and our understanding of the world. It's very exciting, especially when you look at how little the basic operating concept of computers has changed in the same timeframe.