azalemeth 3 hours ago

I do often wonder about stories like this in the context of forensic science – my (incomplete!) understanding a lot of the time suspect DNA samples are taken from small areas and amplified significantly with high-cycle count PCR. I'd worry that any jury presented with a statistical argument about a fragment of somebody's DNA being very unlikely ("1 in 100 million") to be different to the sample found at the scene would not be aware of all of the potential systematic reasons why the actual true probability may be much, much higher.

  • Terr_ 3 hours ago

    Probability seems to be one of those things humans habitually mess-up at.

    "The chances of this person's unique DNA showing up at the scene are a zillion to one!"

    "What does that really mean when the sample also contains unique DNA for a hundred other people? Did all of them commit the crime as a group?"

    • chiph 20 minutes ago

      Depends on how they're using it. To find an unknown person and prove they were at a scene - yeah you'll have the 100 person's worth of DNA to sort through and then match against a (presently) incomplete DNA database. But if you already have a suspect and need to place them at the scene, if their DNA is one of the 100 then they have shown that.

      • ch4s3 18 minutes ago

        But we’re they at the scene or did they just bump into someone or something that was there?

        • chiph 10 minutes ago

          That's something that would have to be addressed at the trial by the defense attorney raising challenges.

          If the DNA is present, it's present - barring any procedural mistakes by the forensics technicians (mislabeled sample, dirty lab equipment, didn't follow manufacturers instructions, etc). Or deceit by one or more members of the forensics team to implicate the suspect.

butvacuum 2 days ago

buried the lede, imho: we have enough DNA profiles to match their sampling up with.

I'm always stunned when reminded that a full genome sequencing has gone from Human Genome Project's extreme cost and (edit: glacial) speed to using seqencing as the easy button.

I hear we've also got machines that'll seqence, fit on a bench, and cost high five/low six figures. They've got issues to work out still though- iirc something about damaged sections causing issues.

nelox 2 hours ago

What a wonderful title, a breath of fresh air.

dkobia 2 hours ago

This always blows my mind. We are currently breathing in the DNA of the trees, animals, and people around us—and we’re leaving ours behind for them, too. We’re all one big genetic soup.

  • SideburnsOfDoom 1 hour ago

    > This always blows my mind. We are currently breathing in the DNA of the trees,

    At this time of year, believe me, I am aware of the inhaled tree DNA setting off my pollen allergies.

  • red75prime 1 hour ago

    "Soup" is a good word. Pieces of DNA resulting from destruction by nucleases and other enzymes.

  • gus_massa 1 hour ago

    The immune system destroy all the DNA in unexpected places in case it's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroid or something. Better safe than sorry.

    One of the important steps in mRNA vaccines was to surround the mRNA with a lipid to ensure it can survive long enough to enter a cell. Naked mRNA would not have worked.

seydor 3 hours ago

Let's wait for smartphones with nanopores

madaxe_again 5 hours ago

I was chatting with a biologist friend a while back, and one tidbit he dropped in was that any sample of air from anywhere on earth will likely contain the dna of organisms unknown to science, so abundant the tree of life is.

  • scotty79 2 hours ago

    I firmly believe that there are thousands of times more species of viruses in circulation that influence human health, almost always in minor fashion, than we currently know. Any random, sub-clinical symptom is in my belief highly likely to be caused by one of such viruses.

  • rcxdude 1 hour ago

    Yeah, there's just so many microorganisms (and some evolve so quickly) it would basically be impossible to really enumerate the species.

dang 5 hours ago

[stub for offtopicness]

  • cmos 1 day ago

    As is the Ocean.

  • tim333 1 day ago

    Cool.

    I think they had to delete all the sequencing data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology so stuff in the air wouldn't show up.

    • shevy-java 7 hours ago

      That was never a convincing argument, IMO. Just as US institutes would claim that China is responsible, by the same token the argument works on any other lab too - yet the media did not present in that way. Ever. That's not accurate reporting; that's an attempt at victim blaming. Next thing someone may do is give a powerpoint presentation about weapons of mass destruction in some far-away country ...

      • popopo73 7 hours ago
            >Just as US institutes would claim that China is responsible, by the same token the argument works on any other lab too - yet the media did not present in that way. Ever. That's not accurate reporting; that's an attempt at victim blaming.
        

        So your idea of accurate reporting is to apply whataboutisms?

      • philipallstar 3 hours ago

        Actually, the US did a lot to downplay the idea that the nearby lab in Wuhan that was doing gain of function research on coronaviruses was in any way involved, to the extent that you'd get shadow-banned on Twitter for mentioning it.

  • dhruv3006 7 hours ago

    Why is nature suddenly click bait - changing times I guess.

  • baxtr 7 hours ago

    > Scratch your head and you’ll release DNA-rich cellular material into the air. There, it will mingle with DNA from myriad other sources: your own and others’ exhalations and exfoliations, fragments of hair, feathers, excrement, pollen and spores, and microorganisms such as viruses and microalgae. This DNA, which can include segments that are tens of thousands of base pairs long, will then wander the air for perhaps a few days, often clinging to dust particles. It can travel distances that range from a few metres to several thousand.