3 ms·
I'm an author of the paper. The title of this article is misleading; first, we encoded 650kB and made 70 billion copies... second, those 70 billion copies wei
by skosuri 14y ago
I'm an author of the paper. The title of this article is misleading; first, we encoded 650kB and made 70 billion copies... second, those 70 billion copies weigh 1 milligram... third, it's really only meant for archival purposes as it's immutable and not random access... fourth, it's expensive right now (at least this might be a solvable problem).
- brfox 14y agoNice work, and thanks for replying to all the questions here. I didn't read the paper, maybe it is addressed in there, but how much did it cost to synthesize that much DNA? Also, it could be random access if you PCR amplified the fragments you need based on the barcodes - you could even make a FAT (file allocation TUBE) which has all the file names and their barcodes.
- skosuri 14y agoapproximately a couple of thousand dollars. while that's true (re: scalability), it's not what we did, and would be hard to scale.
- apathy 14y agothank you so much for the clarifications. I read the ScienceExpress writeup and was quite puzzled by where the 700TB were hiding. "You could store a hell of a lot of FASTQ reads in 700TB of DNA... hey, wait a second..."