![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
We're in the news again.
Dec. 5th, 2002 01:21 amIt's for the mouse this time. Someday we'll announce a large genome and nobody'll report it . . . but we're not there yet.
The BBC story is here, complete with a picture of Jane Rogers leaning on a 3700. I was sitting next to her on that datamining and analysis course on Monday and Tuesday. I like the bit about us having the right genes to make a tail, but I wouldn't want a mouse tail - I'd want a prehensile tail like a new world monkey's. If I can't hold a pint with it, then I'm not interested. Of course, the job of finishing clones of small segments of the mouse genome to provide a high-quality reference sequence continues, and a good thing too otherwise I'd be out of a job.
I don't have my name on this one, which presumably means the analysis was done purely on the genomic shotgun rather than including the small amounts of finished mouse sequence available. Various people I've worked with are, though - Billy, the delightful Adrienne, Chris Clee, Chris Lloyd, Darren, Matt Jones, Ann Joy, Lucy, Stuart, Bev, Karen The New Boss, Emma, Bob, Mike Quail, Ratna, Mel Wall and Dave Willey. 8 Men, 9 women. That's probably about right for the Sanger. I read with interest the articles about sex bias in academia. I don't know how to apply them to my own work. With more subtlety, perhaps.
On a related topic, the mouse assembly on which the paper seems to be based doesn't include the Y chromosome. Fair enough. There's nothing interesting there anyway. I also notice that having long since escalated from contigs to supercontigs, we now have the apprearance of ultracontigs. Any suggestions what the next level will be?
Anyway, I don't know how many of you are into genomic sequencing, but if you are then this is an interesting one.
The actual paper, if you're interested, is available here on the website of Nature, the world's most prestigious scientific journal.
In other news, it being December I'm back onto the Christmas EP released by Low a few years ago. Most highly recommended, not least for Just Like Christmas, the only christmas song I like that isn't taking the piss. In spite of the fact that it's about it not being christmas. Actually, scratch that - there's the Morphine christmas song as well. Time to dig that out too, methinks. It looks like I've also managed to score two more Giant Sand albums and the new Johnny Cash, which should be interesting (versions of Hurt and Personal Jesus, and a duet with a Mr Cave on I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry), as well as the first Ted Hawkins (so I'll have four of his albums - Dave at work apparently saw Hawkins about five times but has never heard him recorded) and an Eric Bogle for my dad's Christmas present.
Hmmm. I wonder if anyone ever say Ted Hawkins and Stephen Hawking in the same room? Perhaps they were the same wheelchair-bound blues-singing physicist? Or perhaps they weren't.
The BBC story is here, complete with a picture of Jane Rogers leaning on a 3700. I was sitting next to her on that datamining and analysis course on Monday and Tuesday. I like the bit about us having the right genes to make a tail, but I wouldn't want a mouse tail - I'd want a prehensile tail like a new world monkey's. If I can't hold a pint with it, then I'm not interested. Of course, the job of finishing clones of small segments of the mouse genome to provide a high-quality reference sequence continues, and a good thing too otherwise I'd be out of a job.
I don't have my name on this one, which presumably means the analysis was done purely on the genomic shotgun rather than including the small amounts of finished mouse sequence available. Various people I've worked with are, though - Billy, the delightful Adrienne, Chris Clee, Chris Lloyd, Darren, Matt Jones, Ann Joy, Lucy, Stuart, Bev, Karen The New Boss, Emma, Bob, Mike Quail, Ratna, Mel Wall and Dave Willey. 8 Men, 9 women. That's probably about right for the Sanger. I read with interest the articles about sex bias in academia. I don't know how to apply them to my own work. With more subtlety, perhaps.
On a related topic, the mouse assembly on which the paper seems to be based doesn't include the Y chromosome. Fair enough. There's nothing interesting there anyway. I also notice that having long since escalated from contigs to supercontigs, we now have the apprearance of ultracontigs. Any suggestions what the next level will be?
Anyway, I don't know how many of you are into genomic sequencing, but if you are then this is an interesting one.
The actual paper, if you're interested, is available here on the website of Nature, the world's most prestigious scientific journal.
In other news, it being December I'm back onto the Christmas EP released by Low a few years ago. Most highly recommended, not least for Just Like Christmas, the only christmas song I like that isn't taking the piss. In spite of the fact that it's about it not being christmas. Actually, scratch that - there's the Morphine christmas song as well. Time to dig that out too, methinks. It looks like I've also managed to score two more Giant Sand albums and the new Johnny Cash, which should be interesting (versions of Hurt and Personal Jesus, and a duet with a Mr Cave on I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry), as well as the first Ted Hawkins (so I'll have four of his albums - Dave at work apparently saw Hawkins about five times but has never heard him recorded) and an Eric Bogle for my dad's Christmas present.
Hmmm. I wonder if anyone ever say Ted Hawkins and Stephen Hawking in the same room? Perhaps they were the same wheelchair-bound blues-singing physicist? Or perhaps they weren't.
