Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Goobamigotron t1_iqn8z7i wrote

So let's sequence the genomes of all the fruit trees and plants using AI and make hybrids like banana cherry apricot strawberry trees.

14

VitaminPb t1_iqojpsr wrote

A sequence doesn’t tell you what each pair is doing with the other pairs, just what it is.

2

Goobamigotron t1_iqqojre wrote

We know the chemistry of trees and the protein folding to about 95%, and AI can do comparative systematics of close species like pears and apples, perhaps one for the future.;)

Quote from plant breeder: The main requirement for using DL is the quality and sufficiently large training data. Despite difficulties, there are clear evidences that DL algorithms capture nonlinear patterns more efficiently than conventional genome based. Deep learning algorithms are able to integrate data from different sources as is usually needed in GS assisted breeding and it shows the ability for improving prediction accuracy for large plant breeding data. It is important to apply DL to large training-testing data sets.

1

[deleted] t1_iqo8zu1 wrote

[removed]

7

__neone t1_iqobyqu wrote

It’s not just the insurance companies, when you talk to individuals most people are very scared of this knowledge being permanent and public.

I’ve spent the last couple years working on making testing more available through employer benefits, I found many employers are on board with the idea, but many individuals are still scared.

I do think that pharmacogenomics (PGx) has the best chance of being widely available. It’s marker-based, not sequence based, which limits the amount of personally identifiable information that could get mishandled. And provides a lot of the benefits that you’re talking about.

When I’ve talked to employers, who would be on the hook for paying for this (and yes, employers are the one picking up the bill, not the healthcare administrators, most “insurance” in the US is really just paid by employers) they don’t like the idea of sequencing, but PGX makes a lot of sense, and the ROI is very clear.

3

VitaminPb t1_iqok3es wrote

People should be rightly afraid of this data being weaponized. Imagine insurance being denied to you for certain conditions (such as a specific type of cancer) because of your DNA?

(And nationalized medicine would also use this to determine if you should be treated based on other things in your DNA.)

2

__neone t1_iqon705 wrote

GINA provides some protection but I don’t think it’s sufficient.

However, PGx is not sequencing. I think that understanding drug reactions is important enough, and no worse from a privacy perspective than knowing what you’re allergic to, that it should be more widespread.

2

VitaminPb t1_iqooz71 wrote

But I can guarantee you that within a few years of it becoming common, some police group/politician will decide that all those test sequences will be stored in a national database to “solve crimes” or “provide medical information”, just like everybody who is arrested or raped or joins the military has their DNA swabs taken and put into the criminal databases now. (See the recent case in San Francisco of the woman who was raped having her DNA used to arrest her later for crimes.)

1

__neone t1_iqopvci wrote

Yes, I agree.

Again, that’s why doing marker-based gets the value without the sequence. I can tell some of your genotype based on phenotype (eg eye color). Testing for a few very discrete SNPs can save your life through knowing about drug reactions. Same as eye color, very small data point, not enough to do damage.

1

CardboardJ t1_iqqp8bo wrote

I've heard this argument, but it still feels like you would be giving up the only real feasible cure for many cancers out of worry for police abuse.

1

Sariel007 OP t1_iqm7ufr wrote

>The human genome is made of more than 6 billion letters, and each person has a unique configuration of As, Cs, Gs, and Ts—the molecular building blocks that make up DNA. Determining the sequence of all those letters used to take vast amounts of money, time, and effort. The Human Genome Project took 13 years and thousands of researchers. The final cost: $2.7 billion.

>That 1990 project kicked off the age of genomics, helping scientists unravel genetic drivers of cancer and many inherited diseases while spurring the development of at-home DNA tests, among other advances. Next, researchers started sequencing more genomes: from animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses. Ten years ago, it cost about $10,000 for researchers to sequence a human genome. A few years ago, that fell to $1,000. Today, it’s about $600.

>Now, sequencing is about to get even cheaper. At an industry event in San Diego today, genomics behemoth Illumina unveiled what it calls its fastest, most cost-efficient sequencing machines yet, the NovaSeq X series. The company, which controls around 80 percent of the DNA sequencing market globally, believes its new technology will slash the cost to just $200 per human genome while providing a readout at twice the speed. Francis deSouza, Illumina’s CEO, says the more powerful model will be able to sequence 20,000 genomes per year; its current machines can do about 7,500. Illumina will start selling the new machines today and ship them next year.

5

FuturologyBot t1_iqmbrit wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sariel007:

>The human genome is made of more than 6 billion letters, and each person has a unique configuration of As, Cs, Gs, and Ts—the molecular building blocks that make up DNA. Determining the sequence of all those letters used to take vast amounts of money, time, and effort. The Human Genome Project took 13 years and thousands of researchers. The final cost: $2.7 billion.

>That 1990 project kicked off the age of genomics, helping scientists unravel genetic drivers of cancer and many inherited diseases while spurring the development of at-home DNA tests, among other advances. Next, researchers started sequencing more genomes: from animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses. Ten years ago, it cost about $10,000 for researchers to sequence a human genome. A few years ago, that fell to $1,000. Today, it’s about $600.

>Now, sequencing is about to get even cheaper. At an industry event in San Diego today, genomics behemoth Illumina unveiled what it calls its fastest, most cost-efficient sequencing machines yet, the NovaSeq X series. The company, which controls around 80 percent of the DNA sequencing market globally, believes its new technology will slash the cost to just $200 per human genome while providing a readout at twice the speed. Francis deSouza, Illumina’s CEO, says the more powerful model will be able to sequence 20,000 genomes per year; its current machines can do about 7,500. Illumina will start selling the new machines today and ship them next year.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xsu0yq/the_era_of_fast_cheap_genome_sequencing_is_here/iqm7ufr/

1

BlueLeatherBucket t1_iqo8mhm wrote

"Illumina unveiled what it calls its fastest, most cost-efficient sequencing machines yet, the NovaSeq X series. The company, which controls around 80 percent of the DNA sequencing market globally, believes its new technology will slash the cost to just $200 per human genome while providing a readout at twice the speed. Francis deSouza, Illumina’s CEO, says the more powerful model will be able to sequence 20,000 genomes per year; its current machines can do about 7,500. Illumina will start selling the new machines today and ship them next year. "

1