INNOVATION

Up Next: Outsourcing for Sequencing

China’s Investment in Medical Research

DOE Joint Genome Institute Illumina DNA sequencers SOURCE: Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab - Roy Kaltschmidt (flickr/berkeleylab) Illumina DNA sequencers at the DOE Joint Genome Institute. The Beijing Genome Institute just announced that they placed an order for 128 new high-performance DNA sequencing instruments from Illumina. This is the largest order of sequencers ever, anywhere.

In a recent discussion on the growth of scientific research in China, a group of experts debated whether the country has the intellectual, financial, and management resources to surpass the United States as the world leader in scientific innovation. As a medical researcher and frequent visitor to China, I believe the answer is very close to yes. My research group uses cutting-edge molecular analysis techniques to study human pluripotent stem cells, the cells that can be expanded indefinitely and differentiated into any of the hundreds of cell types in the body. Writing for The New York Times “Room for Debate” blog, Jonathan Moreno discussed China’s rapid progress in human pluripotent stem cell research, fueled by the government’s recent decision to dedicate funds to the promising and potentially lucrative area of regenerative medicine. Part of the Chinese government’s reasoning was almost certainly the fact that the U.S. government was reluctant to provide adequate support for this field during the Bush administration, which gave China a distinct advantage.

But there’s another niche in which China’s scientific research is rapidly accelerating, and this has far greater ramifications. The Beijing Genome Institute (now called just “BGI,” since its operations extend beyond Beijing) just announced that they placed an order for 128 new high-performance DNA sequencing instruments from the U.S. firm Illumina. This is the largest order of sequencers ever, anywhere. At a retail price of $690,000 each, even if the machines are discounted, the purchase of this instrumentation alone is a phenomenal investment of at least $60 million in a single year. This purchase will bring the total number of sequencers at BGI to 157, nearly twice the number of instruments at the largest sequencing center in the United States, the Broad Institute at MIT, which will bring its total to 89 this year.

Why is this important? DNA sequencing is destined to become the major tool for developing new diagnostic tests, developing drugs, and understanding the causes of human disease. Led by the United States, the first full sequencing of all 3 billion “letters” in the human genome took 13 years and billions of dollars. With this new capacity, BGI could completely sequence several individuals’ genomes in just a couple of weeks.

The cost of running these instruments includes the reagents and the cost of personnel. China will have to pay full price for reagents, but the cost of labor is far less than it is in the United States, and with China’s high standards for science education, there is no shortage of highly trained technicians.

What’s the bottom line? The Chinese government has made a decision to invest in a technology that is clearly the way of the future. The Chinese will be able to achieve with DNA sequencing just what they attained in the manufacturing industry: the ability to do it cheaper and faster than anyone else. This potential for technical superiority raises two important issues for American academics and businesses.

First, there is the simple matter of economics. I predict that U.S. scientists and companies will find in the next few years that their funding goes further if they subcontract sequencing projects to China. As the demand for DNA sequencing for medical applications grows, we will be sending more and more of our money, and our jobs, to China.

Second, China’s sequencing power has the potential to tip the balance in innovation, the inventions and ideas that currently underlie the success of U.S. biotechnology. For a while, at least, Americans will still have the edge in publishing scientific papers using sequencing, because in the Western-dominated scientific publication industry, explaining the importance of the data is as critical as producing the data. However, China’s investment in sequencing will allow the country to build a valuable intellectual property portfolio because new discoveries will be made at a furious pace.

An example of an emerging field of scientific discovery that is dependent on sequencing power is epigenetics. Almost all the cells in the body have the same DNA sequence, and epigenetic modifications of the DNA are responsible for controlling which genes are turned on and off in different cells. The first complete human “epigenome” maps of normal cells were published in scientific journals just in the last few months. Epigenome sequencing requires more intensive sequencing and computer resources than genome sequencing; BGI is one of a handful of genome centers worldwide that can take on these large projects.

How will epigenome sequencing pay off? Epigenetic changes play a role in many human diseases, including cancers. A key discovery, such as an epigenetic modification that is common to particular cancers, could lead to better diagnostic tests, which could in turn lead to more precise, more effective treatments. The scientific group that makes such a discovery could reap millions from licensing patents alone.

This means that an investment of millions in sequencing power now could easily pay off many-fold in the near future. I’m certain that the Chinese government did not have strictly academic interests in mind when they decided to make their country the most powerful sequencing machine in the world.

Jeanne F. Loring, Ph.D., is a professor and the director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.

Comments on this article

10 Responses to “Up Next: Outsourcing for Sequencing”

  1. GreggT says:

    Based on James Hadfield’s map & DB of next-gen sequencers available at http://pathogenomics.bham.ac.uk/hts/, the US appears to have a sizable lead on China in terms of NGS instruments. A quick count based on these data indicate at least 325 institutional instruments in the US and 59 in China. This does not include the commercial capacity of companies like Complete Genomics, Illumina, etc.

  2. Jeanne Loring says:

    This is a response to GreggT. The issue here is not how many instruments there are scattered across the U.S. or in the world. What matters is whether they are coordinately managed. In the U.S., they are not.

    Most research institutions have one or a few instruments. We have one Illumina sequencer here at Scripps. In my neighborhood there are about 10 more (excluding Illumina itself, which does not do service sequencing). The instruments are used by whoever bought them, and no effort is made to coordinate use among institutions (the NIH would have to drive that), so some groups are working at far less than capacity, and others are longing for more machines. The group I worked with in Singapore for my recent epigenome paper has about 20, along with some very good collaborative scientists. That’s why I worked with them.

    The Broad Institute has more sequencing capacity than any other US institution, but it’s a private, not national resource. Having 157 instruments under management by one institution makes BGI a juggernaut.

  3. David Dooling says:

    Illumina actually does do contract sequencing and NIH, specifically NHGRI, does coordinate significant sequencing capacity through its Large Scale Sequencing grants which currently go to Baylor, Broad, and Washington University in St. Louis (a total of about 140 Illumina GA IIx, 10 SOLiD, and 24 454).

  4. mballon says:

    Quick correction: the image above is of Illumina sequencers at the DOE Joint Genome Institute, not at LBNL.

  5. Andrew Plemmons Pratt says:

    mballon–

    Thanks for the correction. The image appears on both the DOE Joint Genome Institute and LBNL flickr streams–hence the confusion.

  6. Dieter ERNST says:

    The speed of China’s learning and catching-up in leading-edge research and innovation is mind-boggling. Who would still stick to the claim that China can only copy? Thsi raises questions for public policy:
    - What can we in the West learn from China’s approach?
    - How should we respond?
    - What does this require in terms of science, technology and innovation policy, and the reform of the education system?
    - And what policies could foster US-China scientific cooperation?
    dieter ernst,EWC

  7. Tom Nichols says:

    I think that this says in more than words what President Obama was trying to convey in his State Of The Union Speech….China wants these jobs and we are falling behind unless we begin to invest immediately.

  8. Michael F. Sarabia says:

    But, are they only ¨data collecting¨, what will they do with that data? Will they come out with a Hypothesis that if such and such is true the following diseases will follow? Of course Not!
    After all the promises made when the first gnome sequence was completed, the only thing I read was all the imperfactions in the DNA secquence they left behind, if that is what they are. We don´t even know enogu to say a variation is due to a disease or genetic or something else.
    Would you support the view that if DNA cannot provide proof of a valuable critical drug that was developed based on the knowledge of the Gnome Sequence, we should convert the machines into something useful?

  9. Michael F. Sarabia says:

    Yes, I know some DNA segments define some drug composition that is used for something but, we have no clue on what the something ¨was¨or ¨may have been¨or not.

  10. Jeanne Loring says:

    Will Chinese scientists be able to form hypotheses? Absolutely. Many of the key researchers have returned to China after many years of experience with the Western research system. I would not make the mistake of underestimating the abilities of Chinese researchers.

    Will they find drug reaction and disease-associated genetic or epigenetic variants? No doubt. For an overview of some variants that are already known, see the 23andme site: https://www.23andme.com/

    As an example, I learned from genotyping that I am likely to have a very bad reaction if I take statins (like Lipitor), but I will have a normal response to Warfarin. That alone was worth the price of being genotyped.

Leave a Comment

Please remember that the Science Progress Terms of Use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted. By clicking "Submit Comment" below, you acknowledge that you have read our Terms of Use agreement and agree to its terms.

Close
E-mail It