Comments on: After whole genome sequencing comes PCR

By: stagnaro

stagnaro — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:36:25 +0000

I am a CLINICIAN, and thus I am thinking as clinican. I wrote in Nature.com, http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55106/, that genetic studies are, first of all, a great businness. Therefore, I frankly suspect that economics may contribute to hindering scientific advances, clinical in nature, which allow me to statethat gene mutations parallel biological systems dysfunctions, bedside evaluated with a simple stethoscope! (1, 2). Recently, also on BMJ blog has been posted the following message of mine:
“http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2008/10/28/laura-james-on-science-and-journalism/#comments
My English is poor, not so perfect and fluent as that of journalists in Spain to attend at Ministerial Conference of Environment and Health in Madrid. However, I am sure you all understand whay I mean. Scientists need publicity, especially for spreading among individuals their own theories, rather than to obtain funding. Unfortunately, paramount theories are not expensive, but are not politically correct. For instance, in the AGE of Genomics at the Zenith, who among journalists is authorized to give information that every gene mutation brings about necessarily alteration, i.e., dysfunction, in related biological system, adding that doctors can nowadays bedside evaluate all tissue functions, so that we can gather since birth precise information not only with the aid of genomics, but also with a simple stethoscope? That’s only as example! Other examples everybody may read in this website (3). Finally, The same observation my you read, for instance, on http://www.nature.com, at URLs http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081006/full/news.2008.1152.html?q=2#last-comment
http://blogs.nature.com/nm/spoonful/2008/03/gout_gene.html
Finally, I cannot agree with such as statement “Too much information is not always a good thing when it comes to disease and disease predisposition”. Wrong! I have demonstratedthat Primary Preventio is almost realizable if doctors would decise to learn Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics, treating related INHERITED Real Risks, as I am doing since a decade, with DIET, etimologically speaking, Coniugated-Melatonine, and NIR-LED personalized applications.

1. Stagnaro Sergio. Mutazioni Genetiche e Disfunzioni dei Sistemi Biologici. http://www.ilpungolo.com, 2008,
http://www.ilpungolo.com/ilpungolo-pdf.asp?NWS=NWS5548.
2. Stagnaro Sergio. Gene Mutations May Be Assessed Today By Bedside Evaluating Biological System Dysfunction. Medical News Today, 6 November 2008. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=34199
3. Stagnaro Sergio. Middle Ages of today’s Medicine, Overlooking Quantum-Biophysical-Semeiotic Constitutions and Related Inherited Real Risk. http://www.sciphu.com November 4, 2008. http://sciphu.com/2008/11/meadle-ages-of-todays-medicine.html

By: Top 10 Genomics News from news.thinkgene.com - Week of 19 Oct 08 | Think Gene

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:00:55 +0000

[...] After whole genome sequencing comes PCR [...]

By: sciphu

sciphu — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:37:51 +0000

Yes, it’s about the cost, but it’s also about analysis-time. And PCR will only become obsolete when sequencing achieves the same cost, the same time to finished test result and the same precision of diagnostic information. That may happen of course, but I believe it will take some time, and before this happens PCR and sanger-sequencing will remain the tools of preference. The shortcomings of next gen sequencing (like the poor performance on repeats – makes it unsuitable for STR analysis – human ID) will also contribute in favor of PCR and sanger-sequencing.

By: Andrew Yates

Andrew Yates — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:24:41 +0000

It depends on the economy of what’s necessary. If PCR and sequencing machines cost about the same someday, then there’s little reason to purchase a PCR machine.

My suspicion is that sequencing will be something performed at sequencing centers to which one mails biological samples and purchases some fraction and accuracy of results as a service —much like computing resources today are purchased. PCR and similar technology will be more like the 1990′s desktop workstation of genomic testing —you have one because it’s not that expensive to own one and because it’s convenient, even though it doesn’t scale, it’s not powerful enough to do everything you want, and may not even be the most economical way to process small tests.