Thread by @heyjudka

🧬Bio tools can be split into

🔍ID tools = look for genes, proteins, metabolites using known set of probes

🔡Sequencing tools = read out these molecules de novo

[example: microarrays (ID) vs RNAseq (Seq)]

ID may win at first, but Seq will always win in the long run. Why? ...

ID tools are typically faster to invent and deploy, b/c we can "identify" by binding to a known probe and we know many ways of measuring binding. (eg antibodies)

Sequencing, however, will require new measurement tech for each molecule type.

So ID tools will be first to market.

But in the long run, people will want to identify what they don't know to look for - the unknown unknowns.

Sequencing enables discovery of *new* biology. (eg non-coding RNAs)

As fields mature we want to not only identify what we know, but invent new, non-natural molecules! Sequencing enables scientists to measure their invented molecules without needing to develop new probes for each one. (eg antibody libraries)

Syn bio wants seq tools, not ID.

We're seeing a lot of action in both ID and seq in proteomics with a few ID companies getting strong early wins.

I'm personally watching metabolomics most closely to see what "Seq"-type tech will emerge that's faster, cheaper, and more single-cell compatible than mass spec.