DNA Sequencing on the Cheap

Optical technology advances toward the $1,000 genome

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The exorbitant cost of deciphering a person's genome dropped sharply in 2005, from $20 million to roughly a tenth of that amount. DNA-sequencing technology using off-the-shelf equipment devised by George M. Church of Harvard Medical School and his collaborators both at Harvard and Washington University in St. Louis may help realize the federal goal of reducing that price to $1,000 by 2015, which experts say would make it practical to decode a person's genes for routine medical purposes. The build-it-yourself method (right) the Church group developed is based on combining widely available and relatively inexpensive microscopes with high-speed digital cameras.

A related technique from 454 Life Sciences in Branford, Conn., also employs cameras coupled with microscopes to sequence DNA, except this method uses a different light-emitting technology than Church. Sequencing also usually relies on bacteria to multiply copies of the DNA target; both new methods instead use a combination of beads to grab the DNA and enzymes to reproduce it. The Church group's version works roughly 20 times faster than conventional sequencing, at a cost of $140,000. 454's system has a roughly 100 times higher throughput than conventional sequencing, at a cost of about $500,000 a machine.

In contrast to these optical technologies, current gene sequencing relies on electrophoresis, in which electric fields separate molecules based on their size and charge. H. Kumar Wickramasinghe of the IBM Almaden Research Center and his colleagues have devised a technique that combines electrophoresis with an atomic force microscope, which scans a surface by running extraordinarily sharp probes across it. The invention can sort DNA fragments roughly 100,000 times faster than conventional electrophoresis, albeit only with snippets up to 40 nucleotides long. The researchers note that their work could not only help accelerate DNA sequencing but also deliver molecules onto surfaces with unprecedented control.

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi
Scientific American Magazine Vol 295 Issue 6This article was published with the title “DNA Sequencing on the Cheap” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 295 No. 6 (), p. 57
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1206-57b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe