New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

See How Scientists Put Together the Complete Human Genome

For the first time, researchers have sequenced all 3,117,275,501 bases of our genetic code

Series of charts shows how much of the human genome was sequenced over time since 2000, ending in completion in 2022.

Martin Krzywinski

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 human genome is at last complete. Researchers have been working for decades toward this goal, and the Human Genome Project claimed victory in 2001, when it had read almost all of a person's DNA. But the stubborn remaining 8 percent of the genome took another two decades to decipher. These final sections were highly repetitive and highly variable among individuals, making them the hardest parts to sequence. Yet they revealed hundreds of new genes, including genes involved in immune responses and those responsible for humans developing larger brains than our primate ancestors. “Now that we have one complete reference, we can understand human variation and how we changed with respect to our closest related species on the planet,” says geneticist Evan Eichler of the University of Washington, one of the co-chairs of the Telomere-to-Telomere consortium that finished the genome.

Credit: Martin Krzywinski; Sources: UCSC Genome Browser; “The Complete Sequence of a Human Genome,” by Sergey Nurk et al., in Science, Vol. 376; April 2022

Editor’s Note (7/22/22): The graphic in this article was edited after posting to correct the number of bases in a totally gapless genomic sequence in 2022.

Clara Moskowitz is chief of reporters at Scientific American, where she covers astronomy, space, physics and mathematics. She has been at Scientific American for more than a decade; previously she worked at Space.com. Moskowitz has reported live from rocket launches, space shuttle liftoffs and landings, suborbital spaceflight training, mountaintop observatories, and more. She has a bachelor’s degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University and a graduate degree in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

More by Clara Moskowitz

Martin Krzywinski is a staff scientist at Canada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Center.

More by Martin Krzywinski
Scientific American Magazine Vol 327 Issue 2This article was published with the title “3,117,275,501 Bases, 0 Gaps” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 327 No. 2 (), p. 92
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0822-92

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe