At least I like some of the predictions RWW made for 2009

Yup. Yup. And yup.

“One word son: filters.”

2009 Web Predictions – ReadWriteWeb.

– Apps that do filtering, inferring and recommendation have a great year; several will release plug-ins for Google Reader, Twitter, Facebook and other ‘sipping from the firehose’ apps.

– New real-time web app launches that integrates Twitter, FriendFeed & more in ways we never could have imagined.

– More contextual browsing technologies will hit the market powered by improved top-down semantic recognition engines.

Phylostratigraphy: Genetic Archeology

Strat
The Economist reports on some scientists that did some phylogenetic comparisons to see when certain genes arose. The scientists noticed that genes that appeared earlier in evolution are more likely to be disease genes than genes that arose later in evolution.

For some reason, the writer for the Economist suggests that older genes would have had more time to evolve any disease away. But, on the contrary, I suggest that older genes are more fundamental and therefore more prone to be involved in diseases. Though I am not sure sure why the scientist found that "genes specific to mammals, by contrast, barely ever carry diseases." Surely there are genetic diseases that revolve around brain genes foud in humans. But it could be even those genes go far back in time.

Nonehteless, the word "phylostratigraphy" is damn cool.

Link [via @preoccupations]: Genes, disease and evolution | Bad old genes | The Economist

As they reveal in a paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution, the researchers found that the majority of disease-causing genes were present in single-celled organisms and that most of the rest arose when multicellular creatures began to evolve. Genes specific to mammals, by contrast, barely ever carry diseases.

Image by Stephen Witherden

Presidential DNA tested for 2012 election?

Wow. This is a deep topic. While I think the discussions around DNA testing will start raging in the next 12 months, for sure there will be a question of whether presidential candidates should have a DNA test as part of the public health report.

Ho-boy, this is getting interesting.

Link: Presidential DNA: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? : The Personal Genome

The next presidential candidates will face an electorate that is radically more conversant in and curious about DNA than ever before. We should reasonably expect that the presidential election of 2012 will include, for the first time, requests for candidates to make their genetic information part of the public record.

A wander through personal genomics

ChromatinSo, I’ve been talking about trends in biology that I think are significant (maybe because I’ve only started following biology again in the past year). In any case, I’ve said the trends were synthetic biology, the future of scientific publishing, and personal genomics.

Personal genomics is where individuals have detailed access to their genomic information (your genotype). To put us all on the same page, your genome is the totality of all your DNA – your nuclear DNA and your mitochondrial DNA. I claim that it also needs to include your micro-organismal biota DNA, as well. But, what the genomic information gives you is the programmatic basis for who you are, where you’ve come from, and what you might pass on.

Genetics 101

To be frank, you already have a clue as to what your genotype is, through observation of your phenotype (how your genotype is expressed in an observable attribute). For example, if you have blue eyes and only one of your parents do, you know that the non-blue eye parent is carrying a blue-eye gene (in normal cases, of course, but you get the idea). Indeed, the long list of questions of parental and family history that doctors ask are a sort of genetic profiling to give an idea of your own hereditary susceptibility to diseases.

Knowing all your DNA code at this time (through sequencing) is unlikely, mostly due to cost (unless you are on this list, or this program, or are this guy). Sure, it will come (and on the way, someone will win a prize). But for now, you need to be satisfied with just the direct sequencing of known stretches of DNA.

Another way is to look for indicative SNPs (pronounced ‘snips’, small nucleotide polymorhphisms, basically differences in code at a certain position of the genome). These SNPs are used as markers associated with a gene or phenotype. Hence, knowing SNPs, which are easier to scan for than sequencing the whole genome, are the state of the art in whole genome understanding.

Booming area?

While the dream of personal genomics is to drive more targeted pharmaceutical treatments, I think where it will really boom is in giving people their information to do what they want to.

I have seen a few companies pop up that offer various forms of DNA tests for regular folks, for curiosity or what. It definitely sits in a general self-knowledge, self-measurement trend that new sensors and tools have begun to provide.

One company I have been following is 23andMe (a play on humans having 23 pairs of chromosomes). In a nice twist, the genetic testing (they scan one million SNPs) is really just a conversations piece, a social object that customers discuss on 23anMe’s socially-driven service. Yep. Social sharing meets biological diagnostics.

How much can it cost? 23andMe used to charge about $1000 per test (and I think that was for 500k SNPs). Recently they lowered the price to $400 and cover over one million SNPs. I suppose, at some point, the price will level off to ensure business profitability. Well, so long as profitability is based on selling tests. Which I probably suppose it won’t be, since these are smart folks running the company.

Thoughts on this

While I am still trying to get a feel for how 23andMe is positioning itself, I do think that the drive in personal genomics will come from people wanting to know more about themselves, to help them make lifestyle decisions, and to feel more secure about their potential health future and of their children. And having the information before knowing what it means is fine, since companies like 23andMe keep combing the literature to add meaning to the data.

Also, pulling on the self-quanitification thread, one might want to marry this with other whole-organism tests. Metabolomics, the sum total of your metabolites, gives a great understanding of your current physiological make up. Marry a string of metabolic analyses with the understanding of your genome, and you have a powerful whole-body understanding. And metabolomics is a mature field with a good technological and informatics underpinning. And it is not expensive.

And and and, what’s more. If you think of the genomic data 23andMe are sitting on, they stand a lot to gain from adding further info to the genomic set. They are already doing surveys that they can match to customer genomic profiles. Imagine if they had detailed metabolic information? Then they have a powerful repository of information to mine about health and genetics. Ripe enough to make oodles of money on, without violating anyone’s privacy.

Hm.

Image by Image Editor

Potential of immune system reboot?

This is cool (below). Gene therapy combined with a re-install of the immune system.

I am writing a story where the main character basically gets an immune system reboot. Due to the longevity of the people in the story, they are more susceptible to auto-immune diseases as the immune system breaks down or goes awry. Therefore, folks get regular immune system resets and required re-immunizations.

I know someone who is over 80 and is healthy except for an auto-immune disease that he got in the past 5 years. A reboot would cure him. Right?

Link: The Spittoon » Very Personalized Medicine: Genetically Customized Bone Marrow Transplant May Have Eradicated Patient’s HIV

The doctors reasoned that if they could find a donor who was not only immune compatible with their patient, but also had two copies of the Delta32 mutation in the CCR5 gene, perhaps they could simultaneously eradicate his leukemia and his HIV infection.

Remarkably, such a donor existed. And 600 days after his bone marrow transplant, the patient is both leukemia- and HIV-free.

Hm. Just noticed changes in Google Search

When was the last time Google messed with their search page? Seems like in this past week’s big push (they killed Lively and made changes to Gmail) they seemed to have added some controls to their search results (or at least, as suggested below, I finally got to see it).

There are promote and remove buttons and a comment button. Has the GOOG finally realized that robots can’t do it all?

This feature has been getting rolled out for a while (a report from Read Write Web). And it seems to me that it actually is something personal, rather than publicly shared. Though it’s probably one more, "use it privately and we aggregate and data mine it" (like Gmail).

I think this is a big thing for Google.

A good warning for writers, by Joel

Another great article by Joel Spolsky on, basically, literary laziness.

Link: Anecdotes – Joel on Software

This is not the way to move science forward. On Sunday Dave Winer [partially] defined “great blogging” as “people talking about things they know about, not just expressing opinions about things they are not experts in (nothing wrong with that, of course).” Can we get some more of that, please? Thanks.

“Taste good, sequence it” and “Look cute, sequence it.”

SequencingWhen I first started working in science, sequencing was just beginning to be a ‘kit’ science, where anyone could buy a kit and sequence. It was long ago enough for us to wonder at it, knowing that in the early days it took experienced scientists a long time to sequence anything through elaborate chemical means. Back then, any sequence was a big science paper.

Then Sanger worked his magic and things started to take off. Soon it became possible for a grad student to sequence a gene during their thesis work. Sequencing no longer became special but was required to publish a genetics paper.

In my time…

When I was a grad student, I had my own DNA synthesizer on my bench (well, it was the labs, but I used it a lot). The machine was able to make short stretches of single stranded DNA (10-30 based pairs). While we used it for studying the very DNA we made, others started using such machines to make DNA synthesis primers for sequencing.

Now a tech could sequence a gene in a few weeks.

Then automated sequencing machines appeared that allowed you to easily read long stretches of sequence, straight into a digital format. These machines were expensive, so either there was core facility or company with a bunch of tech managing the machines.

By the time I was a post-doc, you just had mix sample and DNA primer (also ordered over the Web), send it off, and get an email with all your sequences. It was fast and easy for what I was doing and I was able to sequence my clones in one go. Such sequence by mail was instrumental in me being able to focus on my core protein biochemistry work.

Shotgun wedding

While many of us were ‘walking’ down the chromosomes (current sequence suggesting primers for the next run), a clever man, Craig Venter, just started blasting the genomes apart, randomly sequencing it all, and letting the computers stitching it all together (called ‘shotgun sequnecing’). He started with small viral genomes and just kept going for bigger and bigger genomes such that in the end it took him some 3 years (if I recall) to do the entire human genome.

Of course, the Human Genome Project guys who were toiling away for 15 years or more, were upset at the risk of being scooped. So, they had a sit-down with Venter (a REAL maverick) and agreed to reveal the sequences at the same time. BTW, this is the 2nd thing Venter should get the Nobel for.

And we’re off!

Now in the post-genomic world, we’re sequencing whatever we can get our hands on (see funny quote bellow). Genotyping is now a $400 service (it’s not full genome sequencing, but powerful nonetheless). And Venter, for his 3rd Nobel, sailed off on his yacht, sucking up sea-water and sequencing all the microorganisms in it.

The writer below expresses her wonder at how things have changed in such a short period of time.

I have to agree.

Link: The Spittoon » My Mind Has Been Blown By Genome Sequencing

“Taste good, sequence it” and “Look cute, sequence it.”

Obviously there are good scientific reasons for both of these projects. But can you believe we live in a time where you literally could just sequence something’s genome because it was tasty or cuddly?!

Image from wikipedia

Random walks through synthetic biology

Bio101Synthetic biology is the design and building of novel organisms or biological systems. Sounds amazing, but we have been doing it to some degree for millenia, through husbandry of plants and animals, evolving them over time to drop the traits we didn't want (say, poison, aggression, horns) and promote the traits we did want (say, domestication, wool, meat, seeds).

With the advent of recombinant biology (where genes from one organism are added to another organism), we've been able to modify all sorts of creatures in important or bizarre ways. And, of course, genetically modified crops scare the Jeebus out of some fokls.

Microorganisms are commonly used to grow recombinant proteins, say, human proteins in E coli. But the current spirit of synthetic biology is to rebuild or build (micro)organisms to do some specific tasks or work.

I've spoken about Craig Venter many times. The work he's doing now, that should win him his 4th Nobel, is to specify a microbe that makes biodiesel. Indeed, we already use microorganisms to create biodiesel from various feed-stocks. But Venter takes it up a notch, to the point of specifying the _whole_ microorganism to do exactly the biochemical pathways he wants, rather than mutating or adding or subtracting a gene here or there.

Another person I'm watching is Drew Endy*, from MIT. He and a bunch of other adventurous bioengineers are creating a catalogue of genes that can be used as parts to easily build specific functions in microorganisms. Along with his cohorts, he's been running the iGEM competitions and creating a foundation called BioBricks. There's already a spinoff from these iGEM folks, called ginkgobioworks.

While many of the things I see coming out of this bioengineering seems like trying to shoe-horn a digital thinking onto analogue structures, the breath and depth of the creations, many of them just brilliant in their ingenuity or play, makes me overlook such a anti-digital peeve of mine.

Really, things are just beginning in this new age of synthetic biology. And it'll be really exciting for folks entering it at this stage. I'm looking forward to see how these bioengineering companies flourish.

BTW, the Boston Globe has a good write up of this new breed of bio-hackers.

Image from lofaesofa

*Endy is giving a Long Now seminar on 17 Nov 02008.