Thanks Gao. Nature's article is not free after my login. Anyway, there are 225 gene in chrm 21 (the 2nd shortest), and 545 in chrm 22 (the shortest), so based on just chrm sizes, human might have 40K to 100K genes in the whole genome. The reporter is trying to squeeze in some new twist in the new discovery.
Do u notice that we two just make CRA the #3 hot topics tonight?!
More JDBarron's DD
Author: JDBarron Number: of 15032
Subject: Re: What is all the hype about CRA? Date: 5/7/00 2:40 PM Email this to a Friend
Format for Printing
Post New ? Post Reply ? Reply Later ? Create Poll Problem Post ? Recommend it!
Recommendations: 30
Firstly, it's not just "hype". I would suspect that the reason it may appear to be hype to you is that you appear to be very focused on a particular frame of reference: i.e.: immediate or very near term clinical applications. That's not too surprising a focus for a physician to have, but someone needs to focus on stages of development further in the furture so that progress can be made. And Celera is very much focusing on a number of future stages of development (which is precisely why so many of us think it's such a good investment.)
RE:
"My problem is that I don't see them focusing on clinically relevant information yet. What I see them doing is gathering a lot of information which may or may not be clinically relevant in the very distant future. They say that eventually they will make sense of all this information, but is that going to be clinically relevant sense conducive to cures for diseases?"
--------------
There are a number of companies focusing very hard on "clinically relevant information" [what you appear to mean by clincally relevant seems to be limited to the near term] and some of that is, of course, essential. BUT, for progress to occurr, it is also essential for someone to anticipate future developments and work of what will be the necessary groundwork for them. And THAT is precisely where Celera excels:
Dr. Venter has realized for a long time that genomics will be the foundation for the medicine of the new millennium Genomics will take us away from the trial and error, hit and miss approach that has lead to such horrendously high development costs in the pharmaceutical industry. But to realize the promise of genomics certain tools will be essential and it is precisely those tools that Celera is positioning itself to being the world leader in providing: the human genome database, the Drosophila melangoaster database, the mouse and the zebrafish databases, the genomics analysis algorithms, the SNP database, the proteomics database and more.
In the future, when we wish to find a solution for a medical problem, instead of collecting hundreds of thousands of compounds from all corners of the world, then pre-screening them all, then doing more screening on tens of thousands of those, yet more screening on thousands of those..., each level more expensive than the next (even though fewer compounds are involved) and so on, what we will instead do is 1) do gene expression studies in relevant tissues/patients, SNP profiles, study potentially important genes learned from that with the genomics and proteomics, etc databases, etc. Depending on the results, we'll do things like - in the case of defective genes or dysregulated genes, study the relevant regulators (databases again) then choose appropriate techniques (using produced regualtors as pharmaceuticals (possibly "evolving" them with "in vitro evolution") or gene correction technology or whatever) to correct the problem or, in some cases, determine that the proble is due to an individual susceptibitity (SNP database again) to some influence and take whatever approach best fits the problem (avoid exposure, "correct" the susceptibility, whatever) and so on. No long trial and error, get a somewhat effective solution IF you're lucky but DIRECTED INTELLIGENT development with a very high rate of successes.
And there have already been things done that show that these approaches will bear fruit: the SCIDS success in France (which showed BOTH the effectiveness of gene correction technology AND the effectiveness of one gene delivery technique), the cellular age reversal in the cloned calves (shows great potential for stem cell culture (the limitation on generations due to the Hayflick limit was a major stumbling block), the use of stem cells to treat a number of different conditions, and much much more.
Mickey Mouse and Speedy Gonzales (no relation to Elian!) have nothing to do with it. The significane of the mouse genome is this: Mouse genes are about 95% similar to ours in sequence and function (DM's genes are about 70%)(and the zebrafish somewhere in between). All of those species have been intensively studied genetically in ways that would have been impossible to do in humans so MUCH more is known about their genetics than ours. Because of the similarities, by having their sequences and ours, comparing them can teach us VERY much about ours in a very short time. That's one of the functions of Celera's genomics alogrithms (and why the massive computing power!) In additon, we can take a gene that is associated with problems in humans (as determined from the SNP database or other things), do a "knockout" or whatever in any or all of the other species ("models") (and companies like Exelixis are set up to do exactly those types of studies in those models on a contract basis) and then apply what's learned back in humans (with, of course, further studies).
True, the clinical applications will be somewhat in the future. BUT this approach will become the basis of medicine and the old model will become obsolete.
This is NOT a company for those interested only in the very near term. It is a VERY good company for those with an intermediate or long term view. (Note that Celera does NOT have to wait for drugs or treatments to make profits! Because much of its income will be coming from providing services to other biotechnolgy companies, Celera will be making a profit much sooner than many other biotechs.)
Tony White is the CEO of the combined companies. Consider his brilliance in starting Celera in the first place: PE had a real problem with marketing the high throughput automatic sequencers that have sped up genomics so much: too little demand. At that time, the governments and industry's usage was much smaller than now and there were no plans to significantly increase use in the near future. But starting Celera (as a tracking stock of the same company) changed all that very dramatically: firstly, Celera itself used a very large number. Secondly, the competition from Celera prompted the government to greatly increase funding and that led to the purchase of a lot more of the sequencers. And, at the same time, Tony White had created, in Celera, a company at the very center of the "picks and shovels" (which is what the databases are) of the core of the industry for many decades to come. (And he was smart enough to spin off the unprofitable parts of the old Perkins Elmer (selling off the name as well) and concentrate on the things that have made PE Biosystems such a roaring succes out of a company that had been really in the doldrums. Business sense? Celera has it in spades!
As for scientist: Celera has over 300 bioinformatics people (more than HALF their personnel - how's that for efficiency) and bioinformatics, after all, is what it's all about. (Note that bioinformatics people are also very scarce right now (some universities have had to close bioinformatics courses because of inability to find qualified professors), so 300 (of the best) is quite a resource).
As for further DD, I would suggest the "FAQ's" button at the top left and the "Celera tour" button at the bottom of the screen.
Celera: Buy it, hold it and enjoy it. (But DON'T sweat the volatility! That comes with high growth investments!
Yes, there is some risk (don't put ALL your money on it or more than you can afford to put in higher risk investments and don't put in money you may need in the near future). But the risk is not that great, IMHO, if you take a close look at what's going on and the potential for gain is awesome.
WARNING: look at the stock charts on this stock. It has always had a very high volatility. Because of this, when you buy it you should be willing to enduce a drop to levels at least as low as any experienced during the last two or three months (actually, that probably should be true of any stock!) without panicking. Those high gains don't come without some costs. In additon, closely watching the ticker in real time can be hazardous to your digestion! On ocassion, the price can drop 5 or 10% in a manner of minutes (and look like it will zero out in a couple of hours if that trend continues, but it doesn't) and then turn around on a dime and regain much of it in must as few minutes. (OR the reverse!) Looking at past charts which show only the daily high and low will NOT prepare you for that! So if you aren't used to watching tickers in real time for volatile stocks don't get in that habit with Celera or you may panic and do something you will regret (possibly within minutes!).
Also, some stock boards (thankfully not TMF) are plagued by stock bashing shorts (there ARE other kinds!) who will post all sorts of nonsense at times. The best defense against that is to do your DD and KNOW YOUR STOCK.
boards.fool.com
===========================================================
The current size of Celera's revenue stream is hardly significant since it's FIRST product is not yet online! (It does have about 5 subscribers already but they are EARLY subscribers.) So it's far to early to be making judgements based on Celera's current revenue stream.
To contend that Celera does not have a business model is patently absurd. It does and it has been discussed here numerous times.
Of course you don't find any issued patents for Celera: what you conviently forget to mention is that Celera has not yet been in existance long enough for any patents to have been issued! What you ALSO convieniently forget to mention is that Celera has over 10,000 applications in.
HGSI and INCY have been at it longer. So what? What counts is who is where now! The HGP has been at it longer than all of them and look how far behind Celera it already is!
Since there is real doubt about EST patents right now, both HGSI and INCY may have real problems in the patent area. Celera does not use ESTs so none of its patents will be affected.
EST's are only a small fraction of ALL genes (expressed sequence tags detect ONLY those sequences that meet ALL of the following criteria:
1) are expressed at the time of sampling
a) some genes are expressed ONLY at certain stages of developement
b) some genes are expressed ONLY under certain conditions (hypoglycemia, infection, hyperthermia, ketosis, acidosis and on and on and on and on and on and on........
AND 2) in the tissues sampled (some genes are ONLY expressed in certain tissues)
AND 3) in DETECTABLE amounts (some genes (especially hormones) are expressed in such low levels that any *sample* is very unlikely to contain ANY molecules of it (they don't generally put the entire human into the sample!)
AND many other conditons as well.
Therefore, unless you take a large number of people, at every stage of development and some under every conceivable conditon at every stage of development, etc etc etc. AND put the ENTIRE person into the sample (a bit unethical) you will not detect all genes.
That's why EST's can detect only a small fraction of genes.
Celera's method (sequencing the ENTIRE genome) is the ONLY method that sequences ALL genes (PLUS the OTHER 97% of the genome as well (which, as we are learning DOES have some functions and is NOT "junk" as previously believed).
ESTs do yield many targets but by no means ALL or them!.
In the very short term HGSI and INCY are ahead. BUT in the intermediate and long term, Celera will leave them in the dust, just as it has the HGP already.
messages.yahoo.com |
