Dan MacArthur's post, Can't find your disease gene? Just sequence them all..., is worth a read. He concludes:
But sequencing won't be enough: we need much better methods for sifting out the truly function-altering genetic variants from the biological noise. This is already difficult enough for protein-coding regions (as this study demonstrates); we currently have virtually no way of picking out disease-causing variants in the remaining 98% of the genome. There's a clear need for developing highly accurate and comprehensive maps of the functional importance of each and every base in the human genome, using all of the tools at our disposal - something that will keep us geneticists busy long after we've run out of genomes to sequence.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Two big studies on genetics came out in the past couple weeks, and I want to talk about both. One of them -- the ENCODE study -- was well covered by the media. The other seems to have slipped through.
Paper #1:
In the ENCODE study, the authors compiled data using a variety of experimental…
Fellow [SBer Tara from Aetiology][tara] pointed me at [this bit of inanity][loonytune], which I can't resist mocking:
[tara]: http://www.scienceblogs.com/aetiology
[loonytune]: http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=2306
>The mystery of the human genome has come into clearer focus as…
In our series on why $1000 genomes cost $2000, I raised the issue that the $1000 genome is a value based on simplistic calculations that do not account for the costs of confirming the results. Next, I discussed how errors are a natural occurrence of the many processing steps required to sequence…
...assembly and analysis. The Wellcome Trust has a very good (and mostly accurate) article about the 'next-gen' sequencing technologies. I'm going to focus on bacterial genomics because humans are boring (seriously, compared to two bacteria in the same species, once you've seen one human genome,…