UW, Microsoft claim big breakthrough with data storage using DNA

[maulemall]

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/uw-microsoft-claim-big-breakthrough-with-data-storage-using-dna/

 

Quote

DNA storage of the type demonstrated in the UW lab could, theoretically, store an exabyte (one billion gigabytes) of data in about one cubic inch of DNA material, said Karin Strauss, Microsoft’s lead researcher on the project. Storing that much data by conventional methods would require a warehouse-sized data center.

 

ONE BILLION GIGS IN 1 cu In.

Suck It Samsung

 

 

Quote

 

DNA is also highly durable.

 

Hard disk or flash drives can fail in a few years. Magnetic tape, the researchers say, lasts a few decades, and DVDs and other laser-read media can survive perhaps a century.

Under the right conditions, Ceze said, data encoded on DNA could be readable for thousands of years.

 

 

O Jesus ... Now all the dumb shit you did will be around forever.

 

 

Now I read the part where they said they used synthetic DNA but what about natural organic human DNA.

Can you literally become a library.

 

 

 

 

 

[Cryosec]

I wonder how a DNA to USB adapter would look like

[minibois]

6 minutes ago, Cryosec said:

I wonder how a DNA to USB adapter would look like

We already know how much it will cost though: way too much

[maulemall]

1 minute ago, Cryosec said:

I wonder how a DNA to USB adapter would look like

Yea I don't want to see that plug

[Bsmith]

*holds up arm* PLUG ME IN BOYZZZ

 

No seriously though, at this point DNA and digital data are starting to be inter exchangeable because if they store data inside a DNA string they basically make gene's, which in biology are seen as natures memory(roughly put)

[Ivo]

watch some smart ass put USB 2.0 there

[Cryosec]

7 minutes ago, maulemall said:

Yea I don't want to see that plug

even worse: USB to DNA. 

[theninja35]

And then there's this article...http://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft-invites-bae-interns-to-get-lit-on-lots-of-dranks-then-apologizes-again/

[The Benjamins]

13 minutes ago, Cryosec said:

I wonder how a DNA to USB adapter would look like

and it only comes in USB 2.0 for lighting fast backups of microsoft databases.

[Enderman]

20 minutes ago, Cryosec said:

I wonder how a DNA to USB adapter would look like

 

[ADM-Ntek]

nice and all but keep in mind they have only successfully encoded about 200 megabytes of data onto synthetic DNA molecules.

 

[Clanscorpia]

This has been around for a while. There was a thread ages ago about it

[maulemall]

24 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

This has been around for a while. There was a thread ages ago about it

 

No, different article this came out ,

Quote

Originally published July 7, 2016 at 5:30 am Updated July 7, 2016 at 5:55 am

If you would like to ad something I would love to hear it.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Look, this is a small aside...

 

 

But it BUGS THE ABSOLUTE FUCK OUT OF ME THAT University of Washington calls itself UW and magically that ends up fucking with the University of Wisconsin's ability to distinguish itself both through internet searches or news articles (like honestly while Microsoft is a hint, if a medical paper came out and was in the news saying UW researches did X, you literally could not know which University they were talking about.)

 

The University of Wisconsin (or colloquially known as Madison, UW-Madison, but never UW-M within state due to UW-Milwaukee) is a larger (31k ugrad vs 30k), older (1848 vs 1861), higher ranked (#41 vs #53), more endowed (#3 in R&D spending vs #4) public university, and also has used the UW moniker since it's inception...

 

True story, numerous madden games use "Madison" as the name of the school while U Wash uses "UW".

 

Oh, and if you type UW into google, you almost never get results for U Wisc, even though this list of names from the domain are heavily visited...

 

Both of these following links would take you to results both U Wisc and U Wash students would try to use on a near weekly basis (if not more.)

my.wisc.edu (site title My UW)

my.uw.edu (site title My UW)

 

 

Oh and both use the same "Net ID" system so that doesn't help distinguish them either.

[vanished]

Quote

DNA is also highly durable.

...

Under the right conditions, Ceze said, data encoded on DNA could be readable for thousands of years.

Now that is interesting.  First thing I thought when I read the headline was "ok that's cool, but it's kind of useless if it degrades in a year or something like that"

[Curufinwe_wins]

28 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Now that is interesting.  First thing I thought when I read the headline was "ok that's cool, but it's kind of useless if it degrades in a year or something like that"

So when wrapped up (through histone acetylation) DNA is incredibly stable. The issue is that while you read/write it, it is much less so and mammals have like 7 different checks against DNA corruption and it still doesn't cover it for life-time protection. (Think sink cancer rates)

 

Quote

The overall error rate of DNA polymerase in the replisome is 10^-8 errors per base pair. Repair enzymes fix 99% of these lesions for an overall error rate of 10^-10 per bp. 

The commonly sited statistic. Although I'd propose error rates are much higher than that overall (there are other error inducement points from mRNA to tRNA to packaging induced errors etc etc.)

[straight_stewie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_digital_data_storage

 

Quote

It is, however, a slow process, as the DNA needs to be sequenced in order to retrieve the data, and so the method is intended for uses with a low access rate such as long-term archival of large amounts of scientific data.

So basically, it will never be used in anything that needs to have a high amount of I/O performance. Think "replacement for DVD" rather than "replacement for hard drive".

[maulemall]

12 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

So when wrapped up (through histone acetylation) DNA is incredibly stable. The issue is that while you read/write it, it is much less so and mammals have like 7 different checks against DNA corruption and it still doesn't cover it for life-time protection. (Think sink cancer rates)

 

The commonly sited statistic. Although I'd propose error rates are much higher than that overall (there are other error inducement points from mRNA to tRNA to packaging induced errors etc etc.)

Are you talking synthetic DNA?

[Curufinwe_wins]

7 minutes ago, maulemall said:

Are you talking synthetic DNA?

Synthetic DNA is standard DNA. They use the exact same molecules and currently use the exact same replication/splicing/error correcting enzymes (well cherry picked from nature but still).

 

That is why things are so slow to encode and decode (and expensive). Likewise the histone acetylation process is the exact same (although the histone's can be specifically tailored for the wanted DNA space and compression shape).

 

Thus for now, you'd expect no better than nature provides in this situation (and indeed you'd expect much worse for now due to some very complicated protein issues.)

 

A good basic explanation of the process by which DNA is rendered into this highly compact dense storage media:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histone_acetylation_and_deacetylation

[Nup]

14 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

So when wrapped up (through histone acetylation) DNA is incredibly stable. The issue is that while you read/write it, it is much less so and mammals have like 7 different checks against DNA corruption and it still doesn't cover it for life-time protection. (Think sink cancer rates)

 

The commonly sited statistic. Although I'd propose error rates are much higher than that overall (there are other error inducement points from mRNA to tRNA to packaging induced errors etc etc.)

I'm not super strong in genetics, but normally Dna repairs itself/removes errors during transcription/translation. So maybe the errors would happen outside of the natural process when being read "artificially".

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, Nup said:

I'm not super strong in genetics, but normally Dna repairs itself/removes errors during transcription/translation. So maybe the errors would happen outside of the natural process when being read "artificially".

 

Below is the commonly sited statistic on base pair errors:

 

The overall error rate of DNA polymerase in the replisome is 10^-8 errors per base pair. Repair enzymes fix 99% of these lesions for an overall error rate of 10^-10 per bp. 

 

For now, these processes use enzymes very very similar to those found in nature, so you'd expect replication error rates about the same (or a bit worse).

[Dabombinable]

Wouldn't you need a powerful computer to be able to read it though? As in very powerful?

[spartaman64]

19 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Now that is interesting.  First thing I thought when I read the headline was "ok that's cool, but it's kind of useless if it degrades in a year or something like that"

DNA lasts forever we can sequence the DNA of neanderthals and stuff

[spartaman64]

22 hours ago, Bsmith said:

*holds up arm* PLUG ME IN BOYZZZ

 

No seriously though, at this point DNA and digital data are starting to be inter exchangeable because if they store data inside a DNA string they basically make gene's, which in biology are seen as natures memory(roughly put)

i dont think rearranging your DNA would be good for you

[Bsmith]

46 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i dont think rearranging your DNA would be good for you

just rearranging it is a bad idea indeed, but if you know how to replace or repair bits without too many Hick ups it can lead to nice breakthroughs, but for that we need to be able to read everything and make it write what we want, the writing of it is something that gets done with the process Microsoft uses to store data, if it's inter compatible directly is something that I doubt, but in the long run? who knows.