NATURE is one of the world's premier, peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC publications. Only the most insightful, well documented, and scientfically relevant research into the depths of a certain discipline is published.
When your research are published in NATURE and other premier scientific journals like it, you can be sure you are among the "cream of the crop" when it comes to whatever you're doing in science and in the understanding of nature...
HELICOS is on its way to become one of the leaders in the field of NEXT GENERATION GENOMIC SEQUENCING.
There is NO QUESTION, no doubt, about it...
Nature advance online publication 23 September 2009
Received 18 May 2009; Accepted 5 August 2009; Published online 23 September 2009
The Seeker is looking for a method of specifically binding DNA. As an Ideation Challenge, only a hig...
Fatih Ozsolak1, Adam R. Platt1, Dan R. Jones1, Jeffrey G. Reifenberger1, Lauryn E. Sass1, Peter McInerney1, John F. Thompson1, Jayson Bowers1, Mirna Jarosz1 & Patrice M. Milos1
1.Helicos BioSciences Corporation, One Kendall Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
Correspondence to: Fatih Ozsolak1Patrice M. Milos1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to F.O.
(Email: firstname.lastname@example.org) or P.M.M. (Email: email@example.com).
Top of pageAbstractOur understanding of human biology and disease is ultimately dependent on a complete understanding of the genome and its functions.
The recent application of microarray and sequencing technologies to transcriptomics has changed the simplistic view of transcriptomes to a more complicated view of genome-wide transcription where a large fraction of transcripts emanates from unannotated parts of genomes1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and underlined our limited knowledge of the dynamic state of transcription.
Most of this broad body of knowledge was obtained indirectly because current transcriptome analysis methods typically require RNA to be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) before measurements, even though the cDNA synthesis step introduces multiple biases and artefacts that interfere with both the proper characterization and quantification of transcripts8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
Furthermore, cDNA synthesis is not particularly suitable for the analysis of short, degraded and/or small quantity RNA samples. Here we report direct single molecule RNA sequencing without prior conversion of RNA to cDNA.
We applied this technology to sequence femtomole quantities of poly(A)+ Saccharomyces cerevisiae RNA using a surface coated with poly(dT) oligonucleotides to capture the RNAs at their natural poly(A) tails and initiate sequencing by synthesis.
We observed transcript 3' end heterogeneity and polyadenylated small nucleolar RNAs. This study provides a path to high-throughput and low-cost direct RNA sequencing and achieving the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and bias-free understanding of transcriptomes.
Lucky for us, in ENGINEERING, either the bridge --- or the machine --- works, or it doesn't work.
If it works, we put some in-put in, and out it comes the desired products or answers, PRE-DETERMINED...
A bridge withstands earthquakes and winds; a machine crunches and spew out good, meaningful data/numbers...
If it doesn't, you can't fool other competent scientists, since they will see immediately the products don't match what they know ahead of time what it ought to be...
laujhawj, this looks like not just big news but Tremendous news and capability about RNA sequenciing. I just wonder why it took Nature so many months to get the article peer reviewed and published. It seems clear it is pretty ground breaking without having to convert the RNA.
That's why it's called PEER REVIEWED.
The researchers peers --- others doing the same or similar work --- need to check and cross check the work, in addition to the publication various EDITORS own detective work, before it is published.
The publication and the editors, most of whom are they themselves well known scientists, do not want to be embarrassed publishing something and then latter having to go back and say, Ooops, we din't chech the work carefully and it turned out to be a fraud!
Premier scientific publication will never publish any hting they've just received.
It normally takes a couple weeks to a couple months before they would publish it.
And even then, once in a while, they have to say Oops!
I remember reading about a seemingly world class German physicist who claimed to have discovered the heaviest element known; he wrote and others just nodded and went on and on about what a great discovery he had made,,, it wasn't until some years later that they discovered, there was no discovery!
The thing is, it is VERY DIFFICULT to check and cross check ground breaking ideas and technologies and discoveries. So whenever someone announced they've discovered something deep, it takes some time to review it, making sure what they're saying is true or valid...
Typical review time for any high impact publication takes around 3 months time. Obviously Nature recognized the significant of this research because they published right away after review. Most of the time reviews come back with suggested experiments and a high impact publication could take another 3-6 months before getting accepted.
The publication in Nature online + Bloomberg article for sure impressed some well respected scientists:
Pierre Lindenbaum: Director Bioinformatics at CEPH in Nantes, France
Fiona Brinkman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Brink...
Jose Bras: http://en.scientificcommons.org/jose_bra...
Neil Saunders, http://sciencepond.com/neilfws/statuses/... and
Henry Furneaux: https://twitter.com/RibogeniX