which genome should be sequenced next

Yes the 100-900Bp fragment length limit is a problem. The first 100 are lost because they come off the TLC to fast everything above 900 tends to overlap. I have an internship this summer in which we are working on combining a fluorescence decay measurement with the normal florescence spectra so we can double up the readings and improve the accuracy and range of DNA sequencers.

The break through device I read of (in scientific American) is a single nm channel in which just one DNA strand goes through, as it goes it passes under a laser that somehow reads each nucleotide dye individually. So there is no need for PCR and fragmenting. All you need is a template (original) single DNA strand and specialized dye nucleotides to make the complimentary strand. Because the distance between nucleotides is about .5nm I don’t know how their going to get a laser beam thin enough to read each nucleotide separately?
 
Last edited:
Of Course, Anything With Lasers Is Cool

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
. . . it passes under a laser that somehow reads each nucleotide dye individually.
Click to expand...
That . . . is COOL.
 
I think the Dodo and the Tazmanian Tiger are real possibilities since we have their bones in mint condition and there only 100 years old. I don't think we can do it through cloning though since none of these bones would have a stable nuclei anymore. Though we could do this through biorobotics: read their genomes and print an identical copy off of DNA synthesizers… unfortunately this would cost way to much, to do with today’s DNA synthesizers.
 
Depends on temperature, Ph, enzymes and many other factors. DNA naturally decays by breaking it to fragments and losing its ends. I have heard of viable samples lasting for thousand of years, but to last this long requires the cell still be intact by freezing or dehydration.
 
The chimp (pan troglodytes) is being done. Also ongoing (vertebrates): cow; sea squirt; zebrafish; puffer fish; chicken; mouse; human; pig, and maybe horse, dog. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMGifs/Genomes/EG_T.html for a long list of other organsisms.

Model organisms are good (as pointed out above), because the data generated can be directly linked (maybe) to observations in the lab. The way the human genome project is progressing now I think is to look at "disease markers" from lots of individuals and compare them to the "reference sequences" already obtained. So, complete genomes of individuals do not need to be done, just the odd gene here and there.

As to what next - I like the idea of cataloging extinct or near extinct species. If we do not start now, it may be too late. I also think that more of the great apes should be done, so we can really start to see how close we are to all of our cousins. And keep on with the bacteria - that will lead to new antibiotics.
 
When the chimp genome is complete, I'll look forward to true, mathematical comparison. (Number of identicalbase pairs minus number of different base pairs)/(number of total base pairs). Including so-called junk DNA (how do we REALLY know it's junk anyway). Should be fun.
 
Fetus:

I'm pretty familiar with what junk DNA is, but I'd like to keep the jury out until someone removes all the "junk" DNA from an organism's chromosomes and shows that a perfectly normal organism can be made w/o it. I think people use the term too loosely.

BTW, I have to recind my endorsement of PBS science programs after that ridiculous show the put on last night for 2 hrs after NOVA. Supposedly mapping human migration for the last 50k yrs. I was embaressed watching it...
 
junk DNA may not serve a gene expression purpose but it does serve a structural purpose and is need to keep a chromosome together. Remove it all will render a eukaryotic organism sterile and will also affect the ability for the organism’s cells to reproduce and maintan genes form being destroyed by mutation and wear!
 
There is no such thing as evolving to a "higher" state. Assuming all life on earth eveloved from the original "pioneer" organism, we've all been around an equal amount of time and are all equally evolved. If any organism should be considered "more evolved" it's one celled organisms. Presumably they have reproduced more times than multi celled types and have had more chances to accumulate mutations.
 
Exactly (Mutations)

Mutations
Change
Alteration
Transmutation
Transformation
Metamorphosis

You could say that; however, how would you explain consiousness...

yes, I believe in evolution, but even the scienctist are saying that somethings have an almost "perfect" design...

Seek, computer simulation of single-cell organism;

Question:
How long would it take a computer to learn how to replicate the entire de-evolution/evolution of mankind...

I think you are on the right track...I am interest in hearing more of your thoughts...remember energy plays a big role in the mutation process; hence, mutations like cancer....
 
Panther:

Were you directing your question at me? If so, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking.
 
Mutations

John Mace...I would like to learn more about this theory of yours...sounds interesting...

There is no such thing as evolving to a "higher" state. Assuming all life on earth eveloved from the original "pioneer" organism, we've all been around an equal amount of time and are all equally evolved.

Equally evolved = we have been around for about an equal amount of time...

Please expand on this idea...anthropology & geology are kinda my hobbies...

I would like to hear more...

thanks john
 
I wouldn't claim the theory is mine, but...

Simply put, people often mistaken believe that elvolution is somehow headed somewhere, and that certain animals, usually humans, are at the top of the heap. That we are somehow more highly evolved, or simply "more evolved". For example, I'd be lots of people who fully subscribe to evolution (as oppsed to biblical accounts) would say "humans are more highly evolved than chimps". Well, what does that mean? I think they are still stuck in the idea that humans evolved from chimps, instead of the fact that both humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

I was sorting of taking it to an (absurd) logical conclusion when I said that, if anything, microbes might be call more highly evolved or at least "more evolved" than humans since presumably they've passed thru more generations than we have and had a longer time to pick up mutations.

Hope that helps.
 
Good Point

thanks john....

I be looking around the net for research on this idea...

thanks again...

(R):)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top