From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 21:34:37 MDT
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Kathryn Aegis wrote:
> Robert Bradbury writes:
> >> Only on the basic components. Celera deliberately choose the 'fast and
> >> dirty' method, whereas the government-sponsored projects chose to focus
> >> on the full detailed information. Both should turn out to be useful for
> >> different kinds of applications.
> >
> >Thats what some of the government researchers would like to have
> >you believe.
Its a very complex game due to the competition involved. Merely
producing sequences and "labeling" putative genes is insufficient
currently. But doing anything more than that requires a fair amount
of educated "human" intelligence which is in fairly short supply at
this point.
Multiple companies had advertisements up at the TIGR Genome conference
for "Bioinformatics" specialists.
>
> That's the phrase that Venter uses, in his many, many media appearances.
> (1999's Least Media-Shy Scientist) He is quite honest about the need for
> speed, and he does respect the quality of the work from the government
> projects.
>
Venter, is very sharp. It will not be easy for me to trump him if
I decide to move forward with genome synthesis.
> Evidently the total number of genome components has been expanded recently,
> there was a blurb on the news a few days ago. Does anyone have additional
> info on this?
You will have to be more specific with regard to "genome components".
I believe in the Drosophila genome there is a fair amount of controversy
with regard to how many "real" genes there actually are (from 10-20 K genes).
Since we still have a very difficult time resolving # of genes in
less complex genomes, the # of genes in more complex genomes
(such as ours) is a real crapshoot.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST