What's the name of the company that makes this machine?

@@sanjaymunroe9587 Oxford nanopore technology

Very incredible indeed

honestly i always considered the people who pioneered the science fields as the incredible ones.

@@itsomegali5342 everyone who made an impact to the field is incredible and worthy of respect. not just those who paved the way although they deserve their bit of recognition too

I would also like to know that 🤔

H///at Y

= /. ™0 l N-:

It would take quite a bit of work and the sequencer alone would not be able to do it. They would have to model the proteins from the genes, and then determine the characteristics of the organism. Still, the results would not be 100 percent accurate because the placement of cells(for a multicellular organism) cannot be told by the genome alone.

@@indiabiologyexplains5013 Thanks. " model the proteins from the genes," Now I have something else I have to look up and learn about.

@@Raul28153 Sorry I mistyped that one. I meant that they determine the proteins made by the genes, not "model" them.

Thanks for the correction. I am trying to teach myself molecular biology esp Crispr CAS 9 gene editing for a project I'm working on. Don't need wet bench skills, just need t be able to write about it intelligently. Things have come a long long way from my days at a program at the Sackler in the 90s

@@Raul28153 Nice! CRISPR cas9 editing technology is an amazing field of science that opens an entire realm of opportunity for humans. I hope you learn a lot in your quest to learn more about molecular biology!

The process she is describing with the Illumina NovaSeq is next-generation sequencing. It is 'next-generation' compared to Sanger sequencing. The process she is describing with the Oxford Nanopore Minion is considered long-read sequencing, or has been referred to as third generation sequencing.

It's similar in the fact that in both cases a DNA strand is grown from Dideoxynucleotropes (ddNTs). These are the As, Ts, Cs and Gs of the DNA strand with two of the hydroxyl groups removed so they don't just bond to one another and make DNA on their own, and need a separate RNA strand to form properly. They just add a dye corresponding to each (e.g red for A, blue for G etc.) and throw it at a string of RNA taken from the DNA you want to sequence and make DNA from it. You then measure the frequency of the dye to figure out which pair is in the DNA and you have your sequence. It's different in that in Sanger technology, they grow a single, large piece of DNA using this method which takes ages. In NGS, they use small pieces of very short RNA called ONTs (oligonucleotropes) and they add those to a piece of broken up DNA. They then heat it to split it into two long pieces of RNA through denaturation. They then have a chip with ONTs placed on the surface, each on top of a transistor, which the ONTs on the ends of the RNA happily bond to as they're chosen specifically to pair. They then start making DNA of themselves. The chip measures the electrical resistance of each strand as it grows until it has a sample that's just short enough to have grown quickly but just long enough to be a useful sample, and denature it by passing a current through it to heat it up. They then have the perfectly-sized RNA cleave itself through some method or another. Either that's chemical by adding ionic copper to it or mechanical. They then grow DNA out of it using ddNTs marked with dyes just like Sanger method, but this time instead of measuring one strand, they measure millions of short ones and compare them between each other and a control sample using a computer. This allows for far faster genomic sequencing, and can be used for more specific applications such as searching for a certain gene. For a complete sequence, Sanger will still be necessary however, but that's frankly quite a specific and highly scientific application. You can imgaine how much faster that is going to make searching for something like the BRCA gene or an autoimmune disease in a person's DNA in the coming decades. You could probably have it done at some GPs before long. This is my understanding of it, I'm no expert. If there's anybody who knows better what they're talking about: feel free to correct me. This is the best way I could simplify it for myself personally :)

@@jackeldridge1319 Could you please clear up something: 'short pieces of DNA' doesn't sound to me like you'd really know how they all fit together end to end, kind of like getting a box full of puzzle pieces without a picture to work from. You could analyze the hell out of each piece, but that wouldn't tell you the picture. Or are they somehow growing entire complete lengths of intact DNA all unravelled?

@@HuFlungDung2 I think you really misunderstand how DNA works. These methods create RNA, which will always become DNA in the presence of the As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, as they will bond to their subunit mates. They also have a sample made with Sanger that is stored digitally, and they cross-compare it using an algorithm. They line up what traits match up, and what don't in order to sequence the genome. Imagine you cut up a page of a book into tiny strips of paper, but you keep a PDF of the first edition up on your computer. You can get all the info you need from those strips by lining them up and arranging them, as long as you have that PDF up to figure out what adds up, what's different and what's odd

@@HuFlungDung2 RNA that's bonded to these subunits won't bond together end to end because they use primer chemicals, such as soaps, that bond to the ends of RNA strands and stop the bonding process, keeping them very short and intact

You can already buy nanopore devices. Here is the link. store.nanoporetech.com/eu/starter-packs

Prices starting at US$ 1000 only! That's incredible how cheap it already is, and it's portable, low power to operate (USB). And it comes with some consumables even in the start kit. Machines like these probably will change medicine and much more areas.

@@ThiagoNicolielo I remember watching a documentary once where it was 10s of thousands of dollars but the presenter said something like, "extremely new technology often sees a exponential reduction in cost as they get more optimized and use fewer and cheaper parts." This was from a while ago. it's $1000 now, another 5-10 years and we'll have consumer level DNA sequencing, or maybe even mass sequencing.

@GAME SMASHERS hey I need some help in doing my research on ABCB1 in Rough Collie! Please do help me🥲

Not being a doctor, I think cancer is not some lack of amino acid, I think it's a mutation that goes wrong. Anyway, I think maybe someday it will be possible for instance, to use CRISPR thechnique, or future substitutes, to fix DNA of tumor cells or something like that.

Please leave this to the scientists. Cancer is unregulated cell growth

@@albertmashy8590 why would i do that when scientist waste more time than you are apparently aware of. I posed a question.. a good question. If anything, maybe they will learn something. You should try that sometime, instead of thinking everything should be left to half witted sociopathic "scientists"

@@bongo3997 Your response had no relevance to what I had originally posed as a question. It was not difficult to understand, though I do see how it is commonly misunderstood. But your response was so painfully.. dumb. It is as if you think you are talking to a child, even though it was you that do not understand. If you do not understand, do not talk. Because, if you do not understand, then what you know, becomes irrelevant

@@mosbythegr8920 Speaking with such authority about the work performance of "half-witted, sociopathic scientists," it's readily apparent @Albert Mashy acquired his formidable expertise after having spent a good many years with his sociopaths, either as a colleague - or as one of their rhesus monkeys. In an act of compassion I'd suggest he offer himself as a test subject for use in treating COVID-19 with Clorox or DRANO, but it's clear he's already done that!