What will the $100 genome mean?
A company has slashed the cost of assessing a person's genome to just $100. With lower costs - and as other genetic tools mature and evolve - a wave of new therapies could be coming in the near future.
In May 2022, Californian biotech Ultima Genomics announced that its UG 100 platform was capable of sequencing an entire human genome for just $100, a landmark moment in the history of the field. The announcement was particularly remarkable because few had previously heard of the company, a relative unknown in an industry long dominated by global giant Illumina which controls about 80 percent of the world’s sequencing market.
Ultima’s secret was to completely revamp many technical aspects of the way Illumina have traditionally deciphered DNA. The process usually involves first splitting the double helix DNA structure into single strands, then breaking these strands into short fragments which are laid out on a glass surface called a flow cell. When this flow cell is loaded into the sequencing machine, color-coded tags are attached to each individual base letter. A laser scans the bases individually while a camera simultaneously records the color associated with them, a process which is repeated until every single fragment has been sequenced.
Instead, Ultima has found a series of shortcuts to slash the cost and boost efficiency. “Ultima Genomics has developed a fundamentally new sequencing architecture designed to scale beyond conventional approaches,” says Josh Lauer, Ultima’s chief commercial officer.
This ‘new architecture’ is a series of subtle but highly impactful tweaks to the sequencing process ranging from replacing the costly flow cell with a silicon wafer which is both cheaper and allows more DNA to be read at once, to utilizing machine learning to convert optical data into usable information.
To put $100 genome in perspective, back in 2012 the cost of sequencing a single genome was around $10,000, a price tag which dropped to $1,000 a few years later. Before Ultima’s announcement, the cost of sequencing an individual genome was around $600.
Several studies have found that nearly 12 percent of healthy people who have their genome sequenced, then discover they have a variant pointing to a heightened risk of developing a disease that can be monitored, treated or prevented.
While Ultima’s new machine is not widely available yet, Illumina’s response has been rapid. In September 2022, the company unveiled the NovaSeq X series, which it describes as its fastest most cost-efficient sequencing platform yet, capable of sequencing genomes at $200, with further price cuts likely to follow.
But what will the rapidly tumbling cost of sequencing actually mean for medicine? “Well to start with, obviously it’s going to mean more people getting their genome sequenced,” says Michael Snyder, professor of genetics at Stanford University. “It'll be a lot more accessible to people.”
At the moment sequencing is mainly limited to certain cancer patients where it is used to inform treatment options, and individuals with undiagnosed illnesses. In the past, initiatives such as SeqFirst have attempted further widen access to genome sequencing based on growing amounts of research illustrating the potential benefits of the technology in healthcare. Several studies have found that nearly 12 percent of healthy people who have their genome sequenced, then discover they have a variant pointing to a heightened risk of developing a disease that can be monitored, treated or prevented.
“While whole genome sequencing is not yet widely used in the U.S., it has started to come into pediatric critical care settings such as newborn intensive care units,” says Professor Michael Bamshad, who heads the genetic medicine division in the University of Washington’s pediatrics department. “It is also being used more often in outpatient clinical genetics services, particularly when conventional testing fails to identify explanatory variants.”
But the cost of sequencing itself is only one part of the price tag. The subsequent clinical interpretation and genetic counselling services often come to several thousand dollars, a cost which insurers are not always willing to pay.
As a result, while Bamshad and others hope that the arrival of the $100 genome will create new opportunities to use genetic testing in innovative ways, the most immediate benefits are likely to come in the realm of research.
Bigger Data
There are numerous ways in which cheaper sequencing is likely to advance scientific research, for example the ability to collect data on much larger patient groups. This will be a major boon to scientists working on complex heterogeneous diseases such as schizophrenia or depression where there are many genes involved which all exert subtle effects, as well as substantial variance across the patient population. Bigger studies could help scientists identify subgroups of patients where the disease appears to be driven by similar gene variants, who can then be more precisely targeted with specific drugs.
If insurers can figure out the economics, Snyder even foresees a future where at a certain age, all of us can qualify for annual sequencing of our blood cells to search for early signs of cancer or the potential onset of other diseases like type 2 diabetes.
David Curtis, a genetics professor at University College London, says that scientists studying these illnesses have previously been forced to rely on genome-wide association studies which are limited because they only identify common gene variants. “We might see a significant increase in the number of large association studies using sequence data,” he says. “It would be far preferable to use this because it provides information about rare, potentially functional variants.”
Cheaper sequencing will also aid researchers working on diseases which have traditionally been underfunded. Bamshad cites cystic fibrosis, a condition which affects around 40,000 children and adults in the U.S., as one particularly pertinent example.
“Funds for gene discovery for rare diseases are very limited,” he says. “We’re one of three sites that did whole genome sequencing on 5,500 people with cystic fibrosis, but our statistical power is limited. A $100 genome would make it much more feasible to sequence everyone in the U.S. with cystic fibrosis and make it more likely that we discover novel risk factors and pathways influencing clinical outcomes.”
For progressive diseases that are more common like cancer and type 2 diabetes, as well as neurodegenerative conditions like multiple sclerosis and ALS, geneticists will be able to go even further and afford to sequence individual tumor cells or neurons at different time points. This will enable them to analyze how individual DNA modifications like methylation, change as the disease develops.
In the case of cancer, this could help scientists understand how tumors evolve to evade treatments. Within in a clinical setting, the ability to sequence not just one, but many different cells across a patient’s tumor could point to the combination of treatments which offer the best chance of eradicating the entire cancer.
“What happens at the moment with a solid tumor is you treat with one drug, and maybe 80 percent of that tumor is susceptible to that drug,” says Neil Ward, vice president and general manager in the EMEA region for genomics company PacBio. “But the other 20 percent of the tumor has already got mutations that make it resistant, which is probably why a lot of modern therapies extend life for sadly only a matter of months rather than curing, because they treat a big percentage of the tumor, but not the whole thing. So going forwards, I think that we will see genomics play a huge role in cancer treatments, through using multiple modalities to treat someone's cancer.”
If insurers can figure out the economics, Snyder even foresees a future where at a certain age, all of us can qualify for annual sequencing of our blood cells to search for early signs of cancer or the potential onset of other diseases like type 2 diabetes.
“There are companies already working on looking for cancer signatures in methylated DNA,” he says. “If it was determined that you had early stage cancer, pre-symptomatically, that could then be validated with targeted MRI, followed by surgery or chemotherapy. It makes a big difference catching cancer early. If there were signs of type 2 diabetes, you could start taking steps to mitigate your glucose rise, and possibly prevent it or at least delay the onset.”
This would already revolutionize the way we seek to prevent a whole range of illnesses, but others feel that the $100 genome could also usher in even more powerful and controversial preventative medicine schemes.
Newborn screening
In the eyes of Kári Stefánsson, the Icelandic neurologist who been a visionary for so many advances in the field of human genetics over the last 25 years, the falling cost of sequencing means it will be feasible to sequence the genomes of every baby born.
“We have recently done an analysis of genomes in Iceland and the UK Biobank, and in 4 percent of people you find mutations that lead to serious disease, that can be prevented or dealt with,” says Stefansson, CEO of deCODE genetics, a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical company Amgen. “This could transform our healthcare systems.”
As well as identifying newborns with rare diseases, this kind of genomic information could be used to compute a person’s risk score for developing chronic illnesses later in life. If for example, they have a higher than average risk of colon or breast cancer, they could be pre-emptively scheduled for annual colonoscopies or mammograms as soon as they hit adulthood.
To a limited extent, this is already happening. In the UK, Genomics England has launched the Newborn Genomes Programme, which plans to undertake whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 newborn babies, with the aim of enabling the early identification of rare genetic diseases.
"I have not had my own genome sequenced and I would not have wanted my parents to have agreed to this," Curtis says. "I don’t see that sequencing children for the sake of some vague, ill-defined benefits could ever be justifiable.”
However, some scientists feel that it is tricky to justify sequencing the genomes of apparently healthy babies, given the data privacy issues involved. They point out that we still know too little about the links which can be drawn between genetic information at birth, and risk of chronic illness later in life.
“I think there are very difficult ethical issues involved in sequencing children if there are no clear and immediate clinical benefits,” says Curtis. “They cannot consent to this process. I have not had my own genome sequenced and I would not have wanted my parents to have agreed to this. I don’t see that sequencing children for the sake of some vague, ill-defined benefits could ever be justifiable.”
Curtis points out that there are many inherent risks about this data being available. It may fall into the hands of insurance companies, and it could even be used by governments for surveillance purposes.
“Genetic sequence data is very useful indeed for forensic purposes. Its full potential has yet to be realized but identifying rare variants could provide a quick and easy way to find relatives of a perpetrator,” he says. “If large numbers of people had been sequenced in a healthcare system then it could be difficult for a future government to resist the temptation to use this as a resource to investigate serious crimes.”
While sequencing becoming more widely available will present difficult ethical and moral challenges, it will offer many benefits for society as a whole. Cheaper sequencing will help boost the diversity of genomic datasets which have traditionally been skewed towards individuals of white, European descent, meaning that much of the actionable medical information which has come out of these studies is not relevant to people of other ethnicities.
Ward predicts that in the coming years, the growing amount of genetic information will ultimately change the outcomes for many with rare, previously incurable illnesses.
“If you're the parent of a child that has a susceptible or a suspected rare genetic disease, their genome will get sequenced, and while sadly that doesn’t always lead to treatments, it’s building up a knowledge base so companies can spring up and target that niche of a disease,” he says. “As a result there’s a whole tidal wave of new therapies that are going to come to market over the next five years, as the genetic tools we have, mature and evolve.”
This article was first published by Leaps.org in October 2022.
Your phone could show if a bridge is about to collapse
Researchers have tested a new smartphone app that could gather data about whether bridges are "structurally deficient" —a low-cost citizen-scientist alternative to current methods that are expensive and complex.
In summer 2017, Thomas Matarazzo, then a postdoctoral researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, landed in San Francisco with a colleague. They rented two cars, drove up to the Golden Gate bridge, timing it to the city’s rush hour, and rode over to the other side in heavy traffic. Once they reached the other end, they turned around and did it again. And again. And again.
“I drove over that bridge 100 times over five days, back and forth,” says Matarazzo, now an associate director of High-Performance Computing in the Center for Innovation in Engineering at the United States Military Academy, West Point. “It was surprisingly stressful, I never anticipated that. I had to maintain the speed of about 30 miles an hour when the speed limit is 45. I felt bad for everybody behind me.”
Matarazzo had to drive slowly because the quality of data they were collecting depended on it. The pair was designing and testing a new smartphone app that could gather data about the bridge’s structural integrity—a low-cost citizen-scientist alternative to the current industrial methods, which aren’t always possible, partly because they’re expensive and complex. In the era of aging infrastructure, when some bridges in the United States and other countries are structurally unsound to the point of collapsing, such an app could inform authorities about the need for urgent repairs, or at least prompt closing the most dangerous structures.
There are 619,588 bridges in the U.S., and some of them are very old. For example, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge connecting Philadelphia to Camden, N.J., is 96-years-old while the Brooklyn Bridge is 153. So it’s hardly surprising that many could use some upgrades. “In the U.S., a lot of them were built in the post-World War II period to accommodate the surge of motorization,” says Carlo Ratti, architect and engineer who directs the Senseable City Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “They are beginning to reach the end of their life.”
According to the 2022 American Road & Transportation Builders Association’s report, one in three U.S. bridges needs repair or replacement. The Department of Transportation (DOT) National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database reveals concerning numbers. Thirty-six percent of U.S. bridges need repair work and over 78,000 bridges should be replaced. More than 43,500 bridges are rated in poor condition and classified as “structurally deficient” – an alarming description. Yet, people drive over them 167.5 million times a day. The Pittsburgh bridge which collapsed in January this year—only hours before President Biden arrived to discuss the new infrastructure law—was on the “poor” rating list.
Assessing the structural integrity of a bridge is not an easy endeavor. Most of the time, these are visual inspections, Matarazzo explains. Engineers check cracks, rust and other signs of wear and tear. They also check for wildlife—birds which may build nests or even small animals that make homes inside the bridge structures, which can slowly chip at the structure. However, visual inspections may not tell the whole story. A more sophisticated and significantly more expensive inspection requires placing special sensors on the bridge that essentially listen to how the bridge vibrates.
“Some bridges can afford expensive sensors to do the job, but that comes at a very high cost—hundreds of thousands of dollars per bridge per year,” Ratti says.
We may think of bridges as immovable steel and concrete monoliths, but they naturally vibrate, oscillating slightly. That movement can be influenced by the traffic that passes over them, and even by wind. Bridges of different types vibrate differently—some have longer vibrational frequencies and others shorter ones. A good way to visualize this phenomenon is to place a ruler over the edge of a desk and flick it slightly. If the ruler protrudes far off the desk, it will vibrate slowly. But if you shorten the end that hangs off, it will vibrate much faster. It works similarly with bridges, except there are more factors at play, including not only the length, but also the design and the materials used.
The long suspension bridges such as the Golden Gate or Verrazano Narrows, which hang on a series of cables, are more flexible, and their vibration amplitudes are longer. The Golden Gate Bridge can vibrate at 0.106 Hertz, where one Hertz is one oscillation per second. “Think about standing on the bridge for about 10 seconds—that's how long it takes for it to move all the way up and all the way down in one oscillation,” Matarazzo says.
On the contrary, the concrete span bridges that rest on multiple columns like Brooklyn Bridge or Manhattan Bridge, are “stiffer” and have greater vibrational frequencies. A concrete bridge can have a frequency of 10 Hertz, moving 10 times in one second—like that shorter stretch of a ruler.
The special devices that can pick up and record these vibrations over time are called accelerometers. A network of these devices for each bridge can cost $20,000 to $50,000, and more—and require trained personnel to place them. The sensors also must stay on the bridge for some time to establish what’s a healthy vibrational baseline for a given bridge. Maintaining them adds to the cost. “Some bridges can afford expensive sensors to do the job, but that comes at a very high cost—hundreds of thousands of dollars per bridge per year,” Ratti says.
Making sense of the readouts they gather is another challenge, which requires a high level of technical expertise. “You generally need somebody, some type of expert capable of doing the analysis to translate that data into information,” says Matarazzo, which ticks up the price, so doing visual inspections often proves to be a more economical choice for state-level DOTs with tight budgets. “The existing systems work well, but have downsides,” Ratti says. The team thought the old method could use some modernizing.
Smartphones, which are carried by millions of people, contain dozens of sensors, including the accelerometers capable of picking up the bridges’ vibrations. That’s why Matarazzo and his colleague drove over the bridge 100 times—they were trying to pick up enough data. Timing it to rush hour supported that goal because traffic caused more “excitation,” Matarazzo explains. “Excitation is a big word we use when we talk about what drives the vibration,” he says. “When there's a lot of traffic, there's more excitation and more vibration.” They also collaborated with Uber, whose drivers made 72 trips across the bridge to gather data in different cars.
The next step was to clean the data from “noise”—various vibrations that weren’t relevant to the bridge but came from the cars themselves. “It could be jumps in speed, it could be potholes, it could be a bunch of other things," Matarazzo says. But as the team gathered more data, it became easier to tell the bridge vibrational frequencies from all others because the noises generated by cars, traffic and other things tend to “cancel out.”
The team specifically picked the Golden Gate bridge because the civil structural engineering community had studied it extensively over the years and collected a host of vibrational data, using traditional sensors. When the researchers compared their app-collected frequencies with those gathered by 240 accelerometers formerly placed on the Golden Gate, the results were the same—the data from the phones converged with that from the bridge’s sensors. The smartphone-collected data were just as good as those from industry devices.
The study authors estimate that officials could use crowdsourced data to make key improvements that would help new bridges to last about 14 years longer.
The team also tested their method on a different type of bridge—not a suspension one like the Golden Gate, but a concrete span bridge in Ciampino, Italy. There they compared 280 car trips over the bridge to the six sensors that had been placed on the bridge for seven months. The results were slightly less matching, but a larger volume of trips would fix the divergence, the researchers wrote in their study, titled Crowdsourcing bridge dynamic monitoring with smartphone vehicle trips, published last month in Nature Communications Engineering.
Although the smartphones proved effective, the app is not quite ready to be rolled out commercially for people to start using. “It is still a pilot version,” so there’s room for improvement, says Ratti, who co-authored the study. “But on a more optimistic note, it has really low barriers to entry—all you need is smartphones on cars—so that makes the system easy to reach a global audience.” And the study authors estimate that the use of crowdsourced data would result in a new bridge lasting about 14 years longer.
Matarazzo hopes that the app could be eventually accessible for your average citizen scientist to collect the data and supply it to their local transportation authorities. “I hope that this idea can spark a different type of relationship with infrastructure where people think about the data they're collecting as some type of contribution or investment into their communities,” he says. “So that they can help their own department of transportation, their own municipality to support that bridge and keep it maintained better, longer and safer.”
Lina Zeldovich has written about science, medicine and technology for Popular Science, Smithsonian, National Geographic, Scientific American, Reader’s Digest, the New York Times and other major national and international publications. A Columbia J-School alumna, she has won several awards for her stories, including the ASJA Crisis Coverage Award for Covid reporting, and has been a contributing editor at Nautilus Magazine. In 2021, Zeldovich released her first book, The Other Dark Matter, published by the University of Chicago Press, about the science and business of turning waste into wealth and health. You can find her on http://linazeldovich.com/ and @linazeldovich.
The Friday Five: Sugar could help catch cancer early
In this week's Friday Five, catching cancer early could depend on sugar, how to boost memory in a flash, a tiny sandwich cake could help the heart, and meet the top banana in the fight against Covid.
The Friday Five covers five stories in research that you may have missed this week. There are plenty of controversies and troubling ethical issues in science – and we get into many of them in our online magazine – but this news roundup focuses on scientific creativity and progress to give you a therapeutic dose of inspiration headed into the weekend.
Listen on Apple | Listen on Spotify | Listen on Stitcher | Listen on Amazon | Listen on Google
Here are the promising studies covered in this week's Friday Five:
- Catching cancer early could depend on sugar
- How to boost memory in a flash
- This is your brain on books
- A tiny sandwich cake could help the heart
- Meet the top banana for fighting Covid variants