If the 454 sequencing method is so much faster, then why would anybody ever want to build clone libraries?
The claim is that the library approach is superior as a way to probe for specific genetic loci. For instance, here’s a passage from p. 1071 of the Pennisi article: [Rubin] envisions several libraries, each from a different Neandertal. Researchers would pull out the same fragment from each library to compare with each other and with living people. A pilot project has already demonstrated probes that ferret out specific target sequences, so the team needn’t analyze the billions of bases shared by Neandertals and living humans, or among different Neandertals. “We will be able to identify and confirm sequence changes in more than one Neandertal without having to sequence several Neandertals to completion,” Rubin says. “Seeing the same change in multiple Neandertals will give us confidence that we got [the sequence] right. This sounds similar to the study earlier this year that found Mc1r variants in different mammoths, but in fact that study used direct PCR rather than cloning (I suppose b
Related Questions
- The Library method is hard-wired to generate non-shared libraries (.a files). How can I build shared libraries (.sl files)?
- If the 454 sequencing method is so much faster, then why would anybody ever want to build clone libraries?
- What is a dovetail joint and why is it considered such a good method to build furniture?
