• Complete genome sequencing now only takes 26 hours in emergencies.
    14 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Scientists have halved the amount of time it takes to perform genome sequence diagnoses in cases involving critically ill newborns. A new study published this week shows how physicians can diagnose genetic illnesses affecting babies in just 26 hours in emergency situations. “Diagnosing acutely ill babies is a race against the clock, as even one day of waiting can be a matter of life or death,” said Stephen Kingsmore, the study’s senior author, in a press release. “Obtaining a genetic diagnosis in only 26 hours means the right treatment can begin much sooner, eliminating extra anxiety for families and avoiding extra healthcare expenses.” The study, which retrospectively tested 35 infants who had already received treatment for their illnesses, diagnosed the babies’ conditions in record time –[B] albeit with a 57 percent success rate,[/B] indicating significant room for refinement as the technology matures. Journal: [url]http://www.genomemedicine.com/content/7/1/100[/url] Source: [url]http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-can-now-perform-complete-genome-sequencing-in-26-hours-for-emergencies[/url][/QUOTE] The technology here is new but radical, so I hope they can increase that success rate.
GATTACA when?
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;48807562]GATTACA when?[/QUOTE] 20 years sounds reasonable. But who needs genetically superior people when we will have AI and robots.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48808111]20 years sounds reasonable. But who needs genetically superior people when we will have AI and robots.[/QUOTE] Note it's one thing to sequence a genome and a completely different thing to actually modify it. Methods for modifying specific genes are still in relative infancy; barring pretty big breakthroughs 20 years is extremely optimistic.
26 hours to read only 700 megabytes? Well to be fair, this is base-pairs we're dealing with arranged in a curvy ladder tightly wound up in a double helix, it's hardly binary.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48808111]20 years sounds reasonable. But who needs genetically superior people when we will have AI and robots.[/QUOTE] When the AI and robots turn against us. [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] Among other, extraterrestrial threats that emerge by that time.
But I wonder if there running on Windows XP still? Probably not but I'm baffled by how many people still run that OS when you've got newest 64 bit Windows that dominate the market. Just the switch from 32 bit to 64 had major speed improvements.
So. It won't be soon until we've got a master race. Although you would need to create some sort of retro to overwrite existing humans to prevent from being imperfect and stop prejudice like what was in GATTACA. I really do hope they focus on the first problem with the human body, cells.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48808111]20 years sounds reasonable. But who needs genetically superior people when we will have AI and robots.[/QUOTE] genetically superior people may not be so inferior to AI and robots
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;48807562]GATTACA when?[/QUOTE] Thanks for reminding me to rewatch that movie.
[QUOTE=apierce1289;48809373]But I wonder if there running on Windows XP still? Probably not but I'm baffled by how many people still run that OS when you've got newest 64 bit Windows that dominate the market. Just the switch from 32 bit to 64 had major speed improvements.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't be surprised if it was linux
[QUOTE=ironman17;48809197]26 hours to read only 700 megabytes? Well to be fair, this is base-pairs we're dealing with arranged in a curvy ladder tightly wound up in a double helix, it's hardly binary.[/QUOTE] That "700MB" is not one contiguous file. We can't do that yet. It's an enormous collection of DNA sequences ranging from 100 base pairs to a few thousand at most (more the former, faster reads). These are not in any way actually related to each other. The software then needs to align these chunks to create a genome. This is the time consuming part. The human genome is ~3b base pairs in length after all. It's mostly guesswork and trial and eror until the alignment matches a reference healthy genome. [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;48810779]Wouldn't be surprised if it was linux[/QUOTE] You ain't sequencing shit on a windows based anything lmao. Almost all sequencing software is written exclusively for Linux supercomputers and clusters becusse its just so intensive to perform.
[QUOTE=apierce1289;48809373]But I wonder if there running on Windows XP still? Probably not but I'm baffled by how many people still run that OS when you've got newest 64 bit Windows that dominate the market. Just the switch from 32 bit to 64 had major speed improvements.[/QUOTE] Usually these kinda of supercomputers run on the bare minimum of an OS to reduce overhead to actually run the computer which could rather be spent running the program, so like proboardslol said, it's probably Linux. I imagine it's heavily stripped down, just terminal and the whatever's necessary.
[QUOTE=Cows Rule;48811326]Usually these kinda of supercomputers run on the bare minimum of an OS to reduce overhead to actually run the computer which could rather be spent running the program, so like proboardslol said, it's probably Linux. I imagine it's heavily stripped down, just terminal and the whatever's necessary.[/QUOTE] Spot on. A ~3,000 core, 20TB RAM cluster computer I worked on last year was running a specifically stripped down Red Hat distribution. The only way to interact with it was though SSH and asking a scheduler to run your job for you. Interact SSH sessions existed but you were restricted to about 32 cores and 128GB of RAM. The kernel is also super modified to treat a multi-computer computer as a single machine. It's really neat stuff to play with.
[QUOTE=Cows Rule;48811326]Usually these kinda of supercomputers run on the bare minimum of an OS to reduce overhead to actually run the computer which could rather be spent running the program, so like proboardslol said, it's probably Linux. I imagine it's heavily stripped down, just terminal and the whatever's necessary.[/QUOTE] It's interesting in this regard as a lot of business still use 2000 as its very stable product when compared to millennium edition or 98, i don't understand why the latest versions of windows don't have the ability to run on near ancient machine as it has everything from 2000, XP, Vista, 7, Etc in the files.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.