jrm5100

16 ms·

1.
by jrm5100 6y ago
Issues with source code access aside, your description is mostly wrong. These programs take a DNA profile as input- it's just that the DNA profile is mixed (i.e. from multiple people). It reporting no DNA would be nonsensical. Figur
2.
by jrm5100 7y ago
As far as I'm aware pathogens in meat aren't the main issue- it's the compounds formed when the meat is cooked. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d... Fish cooked at hi
3.
by jrm5100 8y ago
> If so, why didn’t the employees change jobs? Monosopy.
4.
by jrm5100 9y ago
The forensic field moves very slowly in adopting new technology since they have to do a lot of re-validation every time anything changes. This idea already here, but with technology based on older/simpler methods. One example is Intig
5.
by jrm5100 9y ago
It may be millions of units by now- it was 1M about 2 years ago ( https://www.genomeweb.com/microarrays-multiplexing/1m-custom... ). Minor nitpicking: the 23andMe kits use microarrays for genotyping, not DNA sequencing.
6.
by jrm5100 10y ago
To add to your points, a very important consideration is that charter schools can game the metrics by forcing out students who aren't performing well, while public schools can't turn anyone away. This may be why they seem to impr
7.
by jrm5100 10y ago
The Sanger/TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) stuff seems to be specific to microarray data which is different (older, more expensive) than the newer high-throughput data. The figure you linked is a good explanation. The split read method
8.
by jrm5100 10y ago
plus a special sauce for counting the number of specific bp repeats, due to in-del events, this is not something I am not too familiar, but presumably the number of a specific k-mer repeats you have in these genes of interest might correla