Monthly Archives: August 2021

SAN DIEGO, Aug. 26, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bionano Genomics, Inc. (Nasdaq: BNGO) today announced the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) conference lineup featuring 11 customer presentations of optical genome mapping (OGM) data spanning three major clinical areas of application from 10 institutions and six countries. The clinical application areas represented below cover hematological malignancies, inherited genetic disorders and solid tumor analysis. The presentations are expected to cover the clinical utility of OGM across these application areas, along with the unique capabilities of Bionanos Saphyr system to detect all classes of structural variants, across the genome, at a superior resolution relative to traditional techniques. The ESHG conference is being held virtually starting this Saturday from August 28 - 31, 2021.

More than 3,400 participants are registered for this years ESHG meeting, which provides a platform for the dissemination of the most exciting advancements in the field of human genetics. The upcoming customer presentations featuring OGM data are listed below along with the associated clinical areas of application:

OGM Application Area

Presenter

Affiliation

Presentation/Poster Title

Hematological Malignancies

Dr. Anna Puiggros

Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain

Analysis of genomic complexity in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) using optical genome mapping

Dr. Jonathan L. Lhmann

Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

The clinical utility of optical genome mapping for the assessment of genomic aberrations in acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Inherited Genetic Disorders

Dr. Caroline Schluth-Bolard

Universite Hospital de Lyon, France

What is the best solution to manage failures of chromosomal structural variations detection by short-read strategy?

Dr. Kornelia Neveling

Radboud University Medical Centre, Netherlands

Long-read technologies identify a hidden inverted duplication in a family with choroideremia

Dr. Valrie Race

Univ. Hosp. of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Bionano optical genome mapping and southern blot analysis for FSHD detection

Dr. Romain Nicolle

Hospital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris, France

16p13.11p11.2 triplication syndrome: a new recognizable genomic disorder characterized by Bionano optical genome mapping and WGS

Dr. Jenny Schiller

MVZ Martinsried, Martinsried, Germany

Characterization of breakpoint regions of apparently balanced translocations by optical genome mapping

Dr. Viola Alesi

Bambino Ges Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy,

Optical Genome Mapping: where molecular techniques give up

Dr. Valeria Orlando

Bambino Ges Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy

Optical genome mapping: a cytogenetic revolution

Solid Tumor Analysis

Dr. Florentine Scharf

Medical Genetics Center Munich, Germany

Germline chromothripsis of the APC locus in a patient with adenomatous polyposis

Dr. Mariangela Sabatella

Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, Netherlands

Optical Genome Mapping Identifies Germline Retrotransportation Insertion in SMARCB1 in Two Siblings with Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumor

We believe our progress in Europe, with the increased awareness of OGM and the development of the market there, has been outstanding, commented Erik Holmlin, PhD, CEO of Bionano Genomics. Thanks to key sites like Radboud, Leuven and Cochin, the OGM footprint has now expanded in Germany, Spain and Italy. With the growing installed base of Saphyr in Europe, we have seen these institutions and their research teams conduct ground-breaking research to help demonstrate the potential utility of OGM as an alternative to traditional cytogenetics methods for the identification of genome structural variations that can be more sensitive, give a faster time to results and be less expensive to implement when compared to traditional methods. We believe the momentum of research that has been building will continue as more supporting data, like the data that we expect the researchers to show this week at ESHG, are released from around the world.

Story continues

For more details and to register for this online event please go to https://vmx.m-anage.com/home/release/eshg2021/en-GB

About Bionano Genomics

Bionano is a genome analysis company providing tools and services based on its Saphyr system to scientists and clinicians conducting genetic research and patient testing, and providing diagnostic testing for those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other neurodevelopmental disabilities through its Lineagen business. Bionanos Saphyr system is a research use only platform for ultra-sensitive and ultra-specific structural variation detection that enables researchers and clinicians to accelerate the search for new diagnostics and therapeutic targets and to streamline the study of changes in chromosomes, which is known as cytogenetics. The Saphyr system is comprised of an instrument, chip consumables, reagents and a suite of data analysis tools. Bionano provides genome analysis services to provide access to data generated by the Saphyr system for researchers who prefer not to adopt the Saphyr system in their labs. Lineagen has been providing genetic testing services to families and their healthcare providers for over nine years and has performed over 65,000 tests for those with neurodevelopmental concerns. For more information, visit http://www.bionanogenomics.com or http://www.lineagen.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as may, will, expect, plan, anticipate, estimate, intend and similar expressions (as well as other words or expressions referencing future events, conditions or circumstances) convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes and are intended to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include statements regarding our intentions, beliefs, projections, outlook, analyses or current expectations concerning, among other things: the timing, content and significance of the presentations identified in this press release; our assessments regarding our progress in the European market, including our expectations with respect to the continued adoption of OGM throughout Europe; the benefits of OGM relative to traditional cytogenetic testing methods and its potential to replace traditional cytogenetic methods; our assessments regarding current and future research by the institutions identified in this press release; and the execution of Bionanos strategy. Each of these forward-looking statements involves risks and uncertainties. Actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected or implied in these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause such a difference include the risks and uncertainties associated with: potential inaccuracies in presentations given at the ESHG Conference or subsequently published data that may minimize the impact of OGM in human genetics; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business and the global economy; general market conditions; changes in the competitive landscape and the introduction of competitive products; changes in our strategic and commercial plans; our ability to obtain sufficient financing to fund our strategic plans and commercialization efforts; the ability of medical and research institutions to obtain funding to support adoption or continued use of our technologies; the loss of key members of management and our commercial team; and the risks and uncertainties associated with our business and financial condition in general, including the risks and uncertainties described in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, without limitation, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 and in other filings subsequently made by us with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements contained in this press release speak only as of the date on which they were made and are based on management's assumptions and estimates as of such date. We do not undertake any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of the receipt of new information, the occurrence of future events or otherwise.

CONTACTSCompany Contact:Erik Holmlin, CEOBionano Genomics, Inc.+1 (858) 888-7610eholmlin@bionanogenomics.com

Investor Relations and Media Contact:Amy ConradJuniper Point+1 (858) 366-3243amy@juniper-point.com

See more here:
Bionano Genomics Announces ESHG Lineup Featuring 11 Customer Presentations of OGM Data Spanning Three Major Clinical Research Areas of Application...

A $2 million grant from the Mass Life Sciences Center has helped launch the Comparative Pathology and Genomics Shared Resource at Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, a shared resource with state-of-the-art equipment that fills newly renovated laboratory space. For Cheryl London, a veterinary oncologist and Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Education, it represents a long-time vision becoming reality.

Understanding the pathology of infectious diseases is more critical than ever, said London, who added that the resource will lead to improvements in the treatment and prevention of diseases in humans through detailed genetic characterization of model systems and the associated pathology across species.

London tapped two Cummings School faculty members to lead the effort: assistant professorAmanda Martinot, a veterinary pathologistwho focuses on infectious diseases such as SARS CoV-2 and tuberculosis, and assistant research professor Heather Gardner, GBS20, a veterinary oncologist and geneticist.

Cummings School has been investing in this goal for quite some time. In 2020, the 7,500-square-foot Peabody Pavilion was renovated into modern, flexible lab space designed to support multidisciplinary teams. In addition, the resource will leverage Tufts resources such as the New England Regional Biosafety Laboratory (RBL).

When fully operational, this resource will offer advanced capacities for credentialling and analyzing animal models of disease that will help to grow collaborative opportunities among regional academic and industry entities; provide training opportunities for students, fellows, scientists and clinicians; and ultimately support job growth through expansion of the research enterprise in Central Massachusetts, said London.

Martinots research has focused on tuberculosis (TB). When the Martinot Lab and her collaboratorsCummings School associate professor Gillian Beamer, Tufts University School of Medicineassociate professor Bree Aldridge, and Harvard University professor Peter Sorger, head of the Harvard Program in Therapeutic Sciencesidentified some rare lung biopsies and archived lung specimens from tuberculosis patients that were taken during autopsies many years ago, Martinot thought they were a natural pilot project for the Comparative Pathology and Genomics Shared Resource.

We're trying to understand the biology of tuberculosis in human tissue, what helps the body clear TB, and what fuels TB progression, said Martinot. We use a lot of animal models to try to understand these processes, but there's no animal model that perfectly mimics human TB disease.

The resources new technology can extract meaningful genetic information from the immune cells surrounding and within granulomas, a hallmark pathologic feature of tuberculosissomething they haven't been able to do before. This technology also will allow them to obtain similar information from a variety of pathology samples.

Another pilot project aims to advance research by London and Gardner in canine osteosarcoma, an aggressive bone cancer that affects more than 25,000 dogs each year. In 2019, they published findingsof a study that detailed the landscape of genetic mutations in canine osteosarcoma, and more recently completed a clinical trial to test a new immunotherapy treatment on dogs diagnosed with this type of cancer. TheClinical Trials Officeat Cummings School has treated a number of canine osteosarcoma patients, allowing banking of associated biologic samples for further investigation. With these tissue samples, investigators can ask questions about the molecular and genomic features of cancer over time and identify clinical and pathologic correlates.

Animals get a lot of the same diseases that people do, and the information we learn from animals with these diseases can inform investigation of novel research opportunities across species, said Gardner.

We can start to interrogate the combination of pathology with genetics and follow how the cancer is mutating, Martinot said. And we can look at where these cancer cells live to try to understand how the microenvironment might be supporting the progression of the cancer. That information could lead to potential treatment options.

Paul Mathew, anoncologist at Tufts Medical Center and an associate professor at Tufts School of Medicine, is interested in using the resources technology to ask similar questions about prostate cancer using biopsies from human patients. He wants to understand the tumor and how the microenvironment changes over time in prostate cancer patients. The School of Medicineis one of many potential users of the resourceothers include UMass Medical School and Medical Center, which has plans for a new Veterans Administration outpatient clinic and Institute for Human Genetics.

The resource is home to cutting edge new technology that integrates pathology and genomics, said Martinot. With the help of this grant, we can do whole genome sequencing for genetic analysis of pathogens, tumors, and anything imaginable where the DNA sequence might make a difference.

The goal is to help drive discovery, adds Gardner. We have equipment to support next generation sequencing projects, such as a liquid handler robot to help automate sample processing and an Illumina sequencer. We also have a suite of NanoString equipment, which is a platform that will allow increased use of samples historically considered difficult to work with, including formalin-fixed samples, which are often very degraded.

The new technology that will power this effort falls into two main categories:

Everyone involved with the shared resource is excited about its future potential and the opportunity to see it grow. As Gardner said, The opportunities to impact research, in all areas, are limited by the investigators imagination.

Angela Nelson can be reached atangela.nelson@tufts.edu.

Continue reading here:
Investing in the Power of Pathology and Genomics - Tufts Now

I still see myself sitting on a mattress on the floor of my Amsterdam floor. That was in June 1994, and the book had been published ten years earlier under the title Normal Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. I read it cover to cover and eagerly took notes.

The authors Richard Leontin, Stephen Rose, and Leon Kamen spoke plain language against biological reductionism, particularly against the then-dominant sociobiology, which explained human behavior from nature. In the book, they dissected a plethora of studies showing crime, intelligence, differences between racial or socioeconomic groups, and of course, gender differences as a result of our brains and genes.

Leontin and colleagues saw a link between the widespread acceptance of social biology and the dominant ideology of the time: neoliberal economic policies combined with an emphasis on conservative and traditional norms and values. Only when social movements (from the arms race to anti-racism, for a better environment, liberation or for the right to work) gained power, mobilization power and vision, was biology adopted to show social groups their natural place. After all, society becomes noticeably less flexible if the social system is fixed in our nature, in our genes.

Evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin, who died last July at the age of 92, has spent his life resisting biological reduction, both in popular science and science publications.

in his book Biology as an ideology. DNA Doctrine (1991), translated into Dutch as From the DNA doctrine, it targets the discourse of the Human Genome Project.

The genetic map has also been referred to as the book of life or the blueprint of life.

As I described two months ago, the Human Genome Project produced the first genetic map of humans, which has proven incredibly important to the life sciences today. It has been described as a major science project to capture the scale, political power, and billions of dollars involved.

The speech Leontin turned against was not kind. To reinforce the projects importance and sell the idea to politicians and policy makers, the scholars have compared their mission to The Search for the Holy Grail. The genetic map has also been referred to as the book of life or the blueprint of life. One of the geneticists involved, Walter Gilbert, took the lead and thought he could finally answer the philosophical question about who we are using a genetic map. Your genetic code on CD, that was his idea. At conferences, Gilbert photographed the promise of this genetic map by repeatedly pulling a CD out of his jacket and presenting it to his audience with the words: Heres a human being; thats me!

The discourse of the Human Genome Project differs from that of sociobiology. Sociobiology focused on social groups with the goal of identifying and explaining social problems in biological terms. The Human Genome Project focuses on the individual: fully in line with the zeitgeist of the neoliberal age, the individual must obey the adage know thyself. And because, according to this logic, this individual is nothing more than a bag of genes, knowing yourself is nothing more than knowing your genes. This reductive and simplistic representation is what Leontin continued to fight.

A prominent geneticist, Richard Leontine was a founder and pioneer of evolutionary and population genetics. He caused a stir in the 1960s with research showing that he and colleague John Hobby showed that genes vary widely and that gene mutations are not rare but rather standard. Mutations are not rare and should be selected quickly because they may lead to disease or other abnormalities. Nothing is normal, the rest is an aberration. The species has much greater genetic diversity than expected.

Richard Leontine was passionate and spent his life tackling misrepresentations and misrepresentations in science.

Leontins most groundbreaking research was the genetic diversity between people. Lewantin argued that while any two people can be genetically different from each other, it becomes more complex when it comes to the difference between groups of people. His research from 1972 showed that differences within groups are much greater (85 percent) than differences between groups (15 percent). These results have since become a standard science. But Leontine also struck a nail in the coffin of ethnic approaches. Because if the differences between groups are smaller than those within groups, then there is no genetic basis for the concept of race.

For Richard Leontine, science was a social act. Science represents reality, we need knowledge to diagnose cancer, for example. But science at the same time is an intervention in this reality, contributing to our vision of who we are and how we relate to each other.

Leontine was passionate and spent his life fomenting misrepresentations in the sciences. There is no controversy or controversy within genetics as Leontin was not a major voice. Thus it served as a guide in my scientific development.

When I started researching forensic DNA evidence, it also turned out that he played an important role in this. In a debate about the uniqueness of the DNA profile and the opportunity to incriminate the wrong person, his knowledge of genetic variation within and between populations has contributed to setting standards for reliable consistent calculations.

Subscribe and get the best stories from Vrij Nederland in your mailbox.

In 1997, she helped organize the International Conference on Molecular Biology and Evolution organized by the Svante Pbo Laboratory. I was working on my PhD research in his lab at the time. During lunch, I got to know the famous geneticist Leonten because I wanted to ask him some questions about the forensic DNA evidence. He spontaneously offered to skip the conference session after lunch to continue our conversation.

Leontin was known as the smartest and fastest. He spoke several languages fluently and played the clarinet daily. As a scientist, he was also politically involved and spoke about climate, social and economic inequalities, racism and sexism.While examining in depth the work of his fellow scholars, he was known to be very generous to students and emerging scholars. A fellow scientific sociologist received a handwritten note from him at her new appointment at Harvard, where he himself was working, inviting her to come and get acquainted. He knew the difficult world she was entering.

Follow this link:
Humans are more than just a bag of genes - Commentary Box Sports

There are people who argue, persuasively, that Hollywood films are worse than they used to be. Or that novels have turned inward, away from the form-breaking gestures of decades past. In fact, almost anything can be slotted into a narrative of decline the planet, most obviously, but also (per our former president) toilets and refrigerators. One of the few arenas immune to this criticism is science: I doubt there are very many people nostalgic for the days before the theory of relativity or the invention of penicillin. Over the centuries, science has just kept racking up the wins. But which of these wins limiting ourselves to the last half-century mattered most? What is the most important scientific development of the last 50 years? For this weeks Giz Asks, we reached out to a number of experts to find out.

Research Assistant, Social Sciences, Humboldt University of Berlin

A bit more than 50 years ago, but I would say the most influential were the related developments of the Journal Impact Factor and the Science Citation Index (precursor of todays Web of Science) by Eugene Garfield and Irving H. Sher between 1955 and 1961.

These developments laid the groundwork for current regimes of governance and evaluation in academia. Their influence on the structure of science as we know it can hardly be overestimated: Today, it is difficult to imagine any funding, hiring, or publication decision that does not draw in some way either directly on the JIF or data from the Web of Science, or at least on some other form of quantitative assessment and/or large-scale literature database. Additionally, the way we engage with academic literature and hence how we learn about and build on research results has also fundamentally been shaped by those databases.

As such, they influence which other scientific developments were made possible in the last 50 years. Some groundbreaking discoveries might have only been possible under this regime of evaluation of the JIF and the SCI, because those projects might not have been funded under a different regime but also, its possible that we missed out on some amazing developments because they did not (promise to) perform well in terms of quantitative assessment and were discarded early on. Current debates also highlight the perverse and negative effects of quantitative evaluation regimes that place such a premium on publications: goal displacement, gaming of metrics, and increased pressure to publish for early career researchers, to name just a few. So while those two developments are extremely influential, they are neither the only nor necessarily the best possible option for academic governance.

Professor, History of Science, Stanford University, whose research focuses on 20th century science, technology, and medicine

That would surely be the discovery and proof of global warming. Of course, pieces of that puzzle were figured out more than a century ago: John Tyndall in the 1850s, for example, showed that certain gases trap rays from the sun, keeping our atmosphere in the toasty zone. Svante Arrhenius in 1896 then showed that a hypothetical doubling of CO2, one of the main greenhouse gases, would cause a predictable amount of warming which for him, in Sweden, was a good thing.

It wasnt until the late 1950s, however, that we had good measurements of the rate at which carbon was entering our air. A chemist by the name of Charles Keeling set up a monitoring station atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, and soon thereafter noticed a steady annual increase of atmospheric CO2. Keelings first measurements showed 315 parts per million and growing, at about 1.3 parts per million per year. Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, in 1959 warned oil elites about a future of melting ice caps and Manhattan under water, and in 1979 the secret sect of scientists known as the Jasons confirmed the severity of the warming we could expect. A global scientific consensus on the reality of warming was achieved in 1990, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced its first report.

Today we live with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 420 parts per million, a number that is still surging every year. Ice core and sea sediment studies have shown that we now have more carbon in our air than at any time in the last 4 million years: the last time CO2 was this high, most of Florida was underwater and 24.38 m sharks with 8-inch teeth roamed the oceans.

Coincident with this proof of warming has been the recognition that the history of the earth is a history of upheaval. Weve learned that every few million years Africa rams up against Europe at the Straits of Gibraltar, causing the Mediterranean to desiccate which is why there are canyons under every river feeding that sea. We know that the bursting of great glacial lakes created the Scablands of eastern Washington State, but also the channel that now divides France from Great Britain. We know that the moon was formed when a Mars-sized planet crashed into the earth and that the dinosaurs were killed by an Everest-sized meteor that slammed into the Yucatan some 66 million years ago, pulverizing billions of tons of rock and strewing iridium all over the globe. All of these things have been only recently proven. Science-wise, we are living an era of neo-geocatastrophism.

Two things are different about our current climate crisis, however.

First is the fact that humans are driving the disaster. The burning of fossil fuels is a crime against all life on earth, or at least those parts we care most about. Pine bark beetles now overwinter without freezing, giving rise to yellowed trees of death. Coral reefs dissolve, as the oceans acidify. Biodisasters will multiply as storms rip ever harder, and climate fires burn hotter and for longer. Organisms large and small will migrate to escape the heat, with unknown consequences. The paradox is that all these maladies are entirely preventable: we cannot predict the next gamma-ray burst or solar storm, but we certainly know enough to fix the current climate crisis.

The second novelty is the killer, however. For unlike death-dealing asteroids or gamma rays, there is a cabal of conniving corporations laboring to ensure the continued burning of fossil fuels. Compliant governments are co-conspirators in this crime against the planet along with think tanks like the American Petroleum Institute and a dozen-odd other bill-to-shill institutes. This makes the climate crisis different from most previous catastrophes or epidemics. It is as if the malaria mosquito had lobbyists in Congress, or Covid had an army of attorneys. Welcome to the Anthropocene, the Pyrocene, the Age of Agnotology!

So forget the past fifty years: the discovery of this slow boil from oil could well become the most important scientific discovery in all of human history. What else even comes close?

Professor and Chair, History of Science, The University of Oklahoma

Id say the best candidate is the set of ideas and techniques associated with sequencing genes and mapping genomes.

As with most revolutionary developments in science, the genetic sequencing and mapping revolution wasnt launched by a singular discovery; rather, a cluster of new ideas, tools, and techniques, all related to manipulating and mapping genetic material, emerged around the same time. These new ideas, tools, and techniques supported each other, enabling a cascade of continuing invention and discovery, laying the groundwork for feats such as the mapping of the human genome and the development of the CRISPR technique for genetic manipulation.

Probably the most important of these foundational developments were those associated with recombinant DNA (which allow one to experiment with specific fragments of DNA), with PCR (the polymerase chain reaction, used to duplicate sections of DNA precisely, and in quantity), and with gene sequencing (used to determine the sequences of base pairs in a section of DNA, and thus to identify genes and locate them relative to one another).

While each of these depended upon earlier ideas and techniques, they all took marked steps forward in the 1970s, laying the foundation for rapid growth in the ability to manipulate genetic material and to map genes within the larger genomes of individual organisms. The Human Genome Project, which officially ran from 1990-2003, invested enormous resources into this enterprise, spurring startling growth in the speed and accuracy of gene sequencing.

The ramifications of this cluster of developments, both intellectual and practical, have been enormous. One the practical side, the use of DNA evidence in criminal investigation (or in exonerating the wrongly convicted), is now routine, and the potential for precise, real-time genomic identification (and surveillance) is being realised at a startling pace. While gene therapies are still in their infancy, the potential they offer is tantalising, and genomic medicine is growing rapidly.

Pharmaceutical companies now request DNA samples from individual experimental subjects in clinical trials in order to correlate drug efficacy with aspects of their genomes. And, perhaps most important of all, the public health aspects of gene sequencing and mapping are stunning: the genome of the SARS-2 Coronavirus that causes Covid-19 was sequenced by the end of February 2020, within weeks of the realisation that it could pose a serious public health threat, and whole-genome analysis of virus samples from around the world, over time, have enabled public health experts to map its spread and the emergence of variants in ways that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago.

The unique aspects of the virus that make it so infectious were identified with startling speed, and work on an entirely new mode of vaccine development began, leading to the development, testing, and mass production of a new class of vaccines (mRNA vaccines) of remarkable efficacy, in unbelievably short time less than a year from identification of the virus to approval and wide use. It is hard to overstate how amazing this novel form of vaccine development has been, and how large its potential is for future vaccines.

On the intellectual/cultural side, the collection of techniques for manipulating and mapping genetic material is challenging longstanding ideas about what is natural and about what makes us human. Organic, living things now can be plausibly described as technologies, and thats an unsettling thing. Aspects of our individual biological identities that once were givens are increasingly becoming choices, with implications we are just beginning to see.

In addition, these same techniques are being deployed to reconstruct our understanding of evolutionary history, including our own evolution and dispersal across the globe, and perhaps nothing is more significant than changing how we understand ourselves and our history.

Professor, Science and Technology Studies, University College London, who researches the history of modern science and technology

My answer would be PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction. Invented by Kary Mullis at the Cetus Corporation in California in 1985, its as important to modern genetics and molecular biology as the triode and the transistor to modern electronics. Indeed it has the same role: its an amplifier. DNA can be multiplied. Its a DNA photocopier.

Without it, especially once automated, much modern genetics would be extremely time-consuming, laborious handcraft, insanely expensive, and many of its applications would not be feasible. It enables sequencing and genetic fingerprinting, and we have it to thank for COVID tests and vaccine development. Plus, you can turn it into a fantastic song by adapting the lyrics to Sleaford Mods TCR. Singalong now: P! C! R! Polymerase! Chain! Reaction!

Follow this link:
What Is the Most Important Scientific Development of the Last 50 Years? - Gizmodo Australia