News Focus

Comparison Shopping

Science  16 Feb 2001:
Vol. 291, Issue 5507, pp. 1180-1181
DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5507.1180

Now that the human genome has come off the production line, researchers are eager to kick the tires and take it out for a spin. They actually have two versions to test drive, one produced with private money and the other with public funds. Naturally, people are asking how the two products compare. Getting an answer to that question, however, may not be straightforward.

Few scientists outside the groups that produced these draft genomes have examined the results side by side. Leaders of the two sequencing groups have written up their own evaluations; not surprisingly, each one concludes that its own team has done a superior job. A few independent analysts have taken a quick look at the data, but their judgments are tentative, in part because these genomes are fast-moving targets and are difficult to pin down. As additional data come in, both research groups are continuing to update their views of the human genome, touting the most recent improvements; the public consortium will continue to release updated drafts, but Celera's updates will be available only to its paying customers. The published reports appearing this week in Science and Nature represent a freeze of the data as they existed around the first week of October 2000. Given the extraordinary mass of data, it may take several months for molecular biologists to nail down the relative merits of each and get a good fix on their accuracy. Officials at the U.S. agencies that fund genome research are talking about holding a workshop to do just that, possibly on 3 April, but no meeting has yet been scheduled.

Genetic robots.

Automated sequencers and high-speed computers enabled both teams to complete draft sequences in record time.


Anyone trying to evaluate the two products in the meantime needs to see the data in a format called a whole-genome assembly—a format that hasn't been released on the Web at this writing but will be available by the time the two papers are published. The assembly is a view of the genome that's meant to be as complete as possible: Redundancies in DNA sequence are supposedly removed, large chunks of contiguous DNA are assigned to specific chromosomes, and these chunks are meant to be in the right order and in the right back-to-front orientation.

J. Craig Venter and his crew at Celera Genomics in Rockville, Maryland, authors of this week's report in Science, say that their version of the genome, assembled last October, contains 2.65 billion base pairs of connected DNA, plus “chaff” DNA that isn't fully assembled, for a total of 2.9 billion base pairs. Venter calls this version “more than a draft,” because he says more of the data are in order and in correct orientation than in the version assembled by the public consortium last fall. Celera is making its October version of the genome available to the public for free, on condition that the data not be used commercially or redistributed, through the company Web site ( The Celera team reports that more than 90% of its assembled genome is in contiguous data assemblies of 100 kilobases or more, and 25% is in assemblies of 10 megabases or more.

The publicly funded team, led by chief author Eric Lander of the Whitehead/MIT Genome Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reports in Nature this week that its version of the genome contains 2.7 billion base pairs of DNA. Like Celera's version, most of the sequence is in draft form except for chromosomes 21 and 22, which are considered “finished,” or as good as they get. Indeed, fully one-third of the genome is in finished form, and Lander's group estimates that the consortium is finishing at the rate of 1 billion bases per year. Like the Celera version, this draft contains more than 100,000 gaps.

The analysis in Nature is based on a genome assembly completed on 7 October by bioinformatics experts David Haussler and Jim Kent of the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). This version initially had a problem, though: A computational glitch caused the finished DNA sequences to be “flipped” into reverse orientation. Lander says the glitch affected “less than one-half of 1%” of the data, but he notes that some details had to be corrected in the paper, and he says an improved assembly of the genome was placed on the UCSC Web site ( on 9 January. The Nature paper reports (using an index of contiguity called N50 to describe where 50% of the nucleotides are located) that the public N50 “scaffolds” of assembled data are at least 277,000 bases long. Celera's Gene Myers says the comparable value for Celera's scaffolds is more than 3 million bases.

Although both groups have produced genomes of approximately the same size, they describe the characteristics of their sequences in different terms, which makes a quick and easy comparison difficult. It is not clear how much of the DNA in either assembly is fully contiguous, accurately positioned, or correctly oriented.

To check the congruence of the two genomes, Stanford geneticists Michael Olivier, David Cox, and colleagues used a complex genome map devised in their lab—a collection of “radiation hybrid” clones that break the genome into fragments of known dimensions. With this admittedly imprecise measure, Cox reports on page 1298 that he found that the two versions and the radiation hybrid map differed relatively little. Only 766 unique genetic markers out of a set of 20,874 were not assigned to the same chromosome.

George Church, a genome researcher at Harvard University, also attempted to compare the two genomes. But instead of using the UCSC assembly of 7 October to represent the public version, he used a different assembly made in December by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the National Institutes of Health. Church notes that he was “fortunate” in doing so, because of the glitch in the 7 October data. His report, which appears this week in Nature, concludes that the draft assemblies are “similar in size, contain comparable numbers of unique sequences … and exhibit similar statistics” on the number of active genes.

Researchers are eager to use these draft genomes. But the reviewers urge caution in using either one. As Lander points out, some “misassemblies” of DNA may have been “propagated into the current version of the draft genome,” creating potential landmines for the unwary.


Navigate This Article