by Roberto
For someone who learned how to determine a short DNA sequence, say 50 bases, by first transcribing a DNA fragment into RNA and then sequencing the RNA using the laborious fingerprinting approach (that was 1975), current DNA sequencing is nothing short of miraculous. From what I read, some of methodologies can deliver data output of up to multiple terabases in a single run. Mind you, that's 1012 bases! With numbers like that it's possible to obtain very deep coverage of any given base, thousands, even millions of times. Absolutely mind-blowing!
Fig. 1. DNA sequence graphic. Source
Fortunately, increases in computational speed have kept pace with this gargantuan increase in sequencing speed so it is still possible to analyze the results (sort of). Add to the speed of sequencing the dramatic reduction in the price per base, it is no surprise that researchers have flocked en masse to determine the sequence of any nucleic acid they can get their hands on. It now seems that metagenomics (and quite often metatranscriptomics) is a de rigueur first step for any microbial ecology and/or evolution study. The sheer volume of these studies often gives me the sense of drowning in an ocean of massive sequence analyses, unable to stay afloat.
Thus, it proved impossible not to smile when a colleague told me recently: "They say sequencing eliminated deep thinking, deep sequencing eliminated all thinking." An exaggeration, of course, as good humor often relies on. But the phrase left me thinking... Has the massive increase in digital sequence information changed the way we think? What do you think?
Do you want to comment on this post? We would be happy about it! Please comment on Mastodon, Bluesky, or on 𝕏 (formerly Twitter).
Comments