calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
some interesting stuff about Next gen DNA
So i am now fooling around with what I believe is the same technology / company / technology that melba has put all her faith in.
In talking with the company tech advisors, and a few of my colleagues using this , a few things came out that i didn't previously know.
for you really hard core geeks, remember 4 or 5 years ago, when there was all this hooplah (in the bacteriology world) about this "hidden genome" . Several papers were written talking about how using illumina had allowed them to identify a whole hidden world of unknown bacteria? they were finding new and novel sequences in every sample, and large numbers of them!
turns out after all the hooplah settled down, most of that was simply a relict of the new sampling technology, and learning what was junk, and what was good sequence. And how to process those data and sort it out. once that was done, oops - sorry guys, we were wrong on all that hidden genome.
My point being, Illumina technology produces huge amounts of data all right, but you really need some experience and expertise in sorting it out.
turns out the power of the illumina system is that it can do a repeat of a segment 30 or 60 times, so you can compare each site read 30 - 50 - 60 times. using the older system we would just have 2 or 3 reads, to expensive, time consuming to go further than that.
The Illumina system is probably more prone to make a mistake on any single base pair, but since you get so many replicates, it allows for greater accuracy, through repetitive comparison.
So does Ketchum have that experience? don't know, certainly no public record, or paper with her as a author indicating any ability to do that.
Did someone else do the analysis for her? If so who? would this be all the pHDs on her "paper?.
We simply do't know.
weeks rather than months have passed, now we are into months. And this is the second claim of "weeks rather than months" the original was over a year ago, back when she was still intent on doing SNP's. When that didn't work, she pushed on grabbing the big bucks!
Anyway, It's just another piece of the puzzle, esspecially since there is now a brohaha over if it is justin, or BF DNA, the idea that the technology produces so much "noise" raises another red flag.
Just wanted to get us back on track here ladies and gentlemen
CWB
So i am now fooling around with what I believe is the same technology / company / technology that melba has put all her faith in.
In talking with the company tech advisors, and a few of my colleagues using this , a few things came out that i didn't previously know.
for you really hard core geeks, remember 4 or 5 years ago, when there was all this hooplah (in the bacteriology world) about this "hidden genome" . Several papers were written talking about how using illumina had allowed them to identify a whole hidden world of unknown bacteria? they were finding new and novel sequences in every sample, and large numbers of them!
turns out after all the hooplah settled down, most of that was simply a relict of the new sampling technology, and learning what was junk, and what was good sequence. And how to process those data and sort it out. once that was done, oops - sorry guys, we were wrong on all that hidden genome.
My point being, Illumina technology produces huge amounts of data all right, but you really need some experience and expertise in sorting it out.
turns out the power of the illumina system is that it can do a repeat of a segment 30 or 60 times, so you can compare each site read 30 - 50 - 60 times. using the older system we would just have 2 or 3 reads, to expensive, time consuming to go further than that.
The Illumina system is probably more prone to make a mistake on any single base pair, but since you get so many replicates, it allows for greater accuracy, through repetitive comparison.
So does Ketchum have that experience? don't know, certainly no public record, or paper with her as a author indicating any ability to do that.
Did someone else do the analysis for her? If so who? would this be all the pHDs on her "paper?.
We simply do't know.
weeks rather than months have passed, now we are into months. And this is the second claim of "weeks rather than months" the original was over a year ago, back when she was still intent on doing SNP's. When that didn't work, she pushed on grabbing the big bucks!
Anyway, It's just another piece of the puzzle, esspecially since there is now a brohaha over if it is justin, or BF DNA, the idea that the technology produces so much "noise" raises another red flag.
Just wanted to get us back on track here ladies and gentlemen
CWB
