Sequencing Potato DNA |
I. It's A Constant Problem
The Fine-structure constant gets a lot of press from time to time (NIST).
To the contrary, poor ole Dredd Blog constantly gets no respect (On The Origin Of A Genetic Constant, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; On The Origin Of Another Genetic Constant, 2, 3, 4).
After discovering the "≈(32/35/25/6)" genetic constant I wondered if the lack of respect was because the individual component counts were not exact enough, but I quickly dismissed that idea for several reasons.
One reason is that the "≈(32/35/25/6)" constant I discovered is found in many, if not all very different DNA sequences of multiple species (e.g. pigs, horses, dogs, insects, whales, etc.).
Another reason is because DNA collection and sequencing per se is not an exact discipline even in human DNA forensics.
And human DNA forensics is most demanding because it can be used to execute or imprison humans in court cases.
Notice:
"But just how accurate is DNA sequencing and its data storage techniques? What effect do these inaccuracies have on genomics and their use in pharmacogenetics?
...
Regardless of how accurate this process of sequencing may seem, through the sequencimg of the entire human genome, this yields a total of approximately 300,000 base pair errors."
(The Ethics of Genomics, cf. Sequencing 101: understanding accuracy in DNA sequencing, Bridging the gaps in DNA sequencing).
II. Closing Comments
So, I concluded that the reason Dredd Blog gets no respect is because of Rodney Dangerfield's famous discovery, the "I don't get any respect syndrome" constant (see video below).
The previous post in this series is here.