Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Biotech Consumables

chimera.labs.oreilly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: Open Source Biotech Consumables

#11

Post by dnautics »

frisco wrote: post #9
pcrh wrote: post #7

If a start-up wishes to make big bucks in biohacking it has to deliver a product that is in wide demand by the general public. The reagents on sale mentioned (Taq, antibiotic resistance genes and DNA ladders) are to biotech what solder and resistors are to electronics, i.e. very low value products of no use to the general public. The real hurdle for true "biohacking" is the cost of laboratory facilities and equipment…

This is what my startup is working on! Check out https://www.transcriptic.com . It's still early days and we'd love feedback.

I'm not bullish on this field. While there are certain biological operations (e.g. sequencing) that are "embarassingly parallelizable" (to borrow a CS concept), most are not, and require aggressive "interrupt handling".

I make a mutation of enzyme X, then test it. Ok, the procedure works, now let's scale it to 48 mutants. Uh oh, the procedure stopped working at #28. Why? Because the batch number for our competent cells from NEB changed and it no longer accepts our plasmid. (real situation) Etc.

Re: Open Source Biotech Consumables

#12

Post by Thriptic »

kayhi wrote: post #8

Our start up has been tackling this space of over priced chemicals and supplies for the past four years. We've worked with the majority of the DIYBio labs in the USA. We've taken the approach of working with small manufacturers that already make products that are repackaged and marked up more than 10x. John (author) is right that there is a huge need for more affordable reagents especially recombinant protein.

Link us please

Re: Open Source Biotech Consumables

#13

Post by patcon »

pcrh wrote: post #7

If a start-up wishes to make big bucks in biohacking it has to deliver a product that is in wide demand by the general public. The reagents on sale mentioned (Taq, antibiotic resistance genes and DNA ladders) are to biotech what solder and resistors are to electronics, i.e. very low value products of no use to the general public. The real hurdle for true "biohacking" is the cost of laboratory facilities and equipment…

Yes, everyone wants their startup to make big bucks, but how do you do get to the stage of the startup's cheap rapid iteration trope when reagents cost an arm and a leg. There might not be big cash in the domain of cheap reagents, but I would humbly suggest this must be disrupted before biotech gets really exciting. Or at least that we need to consider that maybe it's a foundational need that should take some precedent :)

Re: Open Source Biotech Consumables

#14

Post by pcrh »

patcon wrote: post #13
pcrh wrote: post #7

If a start-up wishes to make big bucks in biohacking it has to deliver a product that is in wide demand by the general public. The reagents on sale mentioned (Taq, antibiotic resistance genes and DNA ladders) are to biotech what solder and resistors are to electronics, i.e. very low value products of no use to the general public. The real hurdle for true "biohacking" is the cost of laboratory facilities and equipment…

Yes, everyone wants their startup to make big bucks, but how do you do get to the stage of the startup's cheap rapid iteration trope when reagents cost an arm and a leg. There might not be big cash in the domain of cheap reagents, but I would humbly suggest this must be disrupted before biotech gets really exciting. Or at least that we need to consider that maybe it's a foundational need that should take some precede…

So, what can start-ups do to reduce their costs?

For one, they should focus on areas where the reagents are not expensive, e.g. identifying novel natural biological extracts with new activities, consumer genetics (as in 23 and me), or areas such as horticulture. They should avoid things like stem cells and drug development (as opposed to discovery).

Re: Open Source Biotech Consumables

#15

Post by pcrh »

kayhi wrote: post #8

Our start up has been tackling this space of over priced chemicals and supplies for the past four years. We've worked with the majority of the DIYBio labs in the USA. We've taken the approach of working with small manufacturers that already make products that are repackaged and marked up more than 10x. John (author) is right that there is a huge need for more affordable reagents especially recombinant protein.

This seems to be an area for disruptive approaches. I think one of the problems is for labs to find the cheaper suppliers who produce quality reagents. Most times such suppliers will be producing only a few reagents and so can't afford to have the markets presence of someone like VWR, Fisher or Sigma.

Perhaps an ebay-like marketplace with user feedback would be the way to go?

Re: Open Source Biotech Consumables

#16

Post by icegreentea »

pcrh wrote: post #14
patcon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, everyone wants their startup to make big bucks, but how do you do get to the stage of the startup's cheap rapid iteration trope when reagents cost an arm and a leg. There might not be big cash in the domain of cheap reagents, but I would humbly suggest this must be disrupted before biotech gets really exciting. Or at least that we need to consider that maybe it's a foundational need that should take some precede…

So, what can start-ups do to reduce their costs? For one, they should focus on areas where the reagents are not expensive, e.g. identifying novel natural biological extracts with new activities, consumer genetics (as in 23 and me), or areas such as horticulture. They should avoid things like stem cells and drug development (as opposed to discovery).

I should point out that the star of the article (open source taq polymerase) is the bread and butter of genetics research. It is what makes PCR - pretty much the standard way of doing DNA amplification (which any genetics research requires) work.

As it stands now, taq isn't ridiculously expensive, but surely open sourcing will reduce the barrier.

Re: Open Source Biotech Consumables

#17

Post by kayhi »

Thriptic wrote: post #12
kayhi wrote: post #8

Our start up has been tackling this space of over priced chemicals and supplies for the past four years. We've worked with the majority of the DIYBio labs in the USA. We've taken the approach of working with small manufacturers that already make products that are repackaged and marked up more than 10x. John (author) is right that there is a huge need for more affordable reagents especially recombinant protein.

Link us please

http://store.p212121.com/

Re: Open Source Biotech Consumables

#18

Post by kayhi »

pcrh wrote: post #15
kayhi wrote: post #8

Our start up has been tackling this space of over priced chemicals and supplies for the past four years. We've worked with the majority of the DIYBio labs in the USA. We've taken the approach of working with small manufacturers that already make products that are repackaged and marked up more than 10x. John (author) is right that there is a huge need for more affordable reagents especially recombinant protein.

This seems to be an area for disruptive approaches. I think one of the problems is for labs to find the cheaper suppliers who produce quality reagents. Most times such suppliers will be producing only a few reagents and so can't afford to have the markets presence of someone like VWR, Fisher or Sigma. Perhaps an ebay-like marketplace with user feedback would be the way to go?

You're on the right track!

We've actually had extremely few issues with quality (much less than 1%). I've personally used many of our manufacturers in research myself, which helped at the start.

There are start ups collecting user feedback on supplies and we used to have products reviews, but we've run into issues from large competitors making up fictitious reviews (reviews of products we've never sold, etc.)

Right, many manufacturers can only produce 5-10 items at scale and do not have the sales force for any market presence. We are helping them by aggregating their products (currently at 45,000+) to compete with VWR, Fisher and Sigma.

The sad part (why this area needs help) is there is significant savings ordering through us on the exact same item such as:

Greiner CELLSTAR® serological pipette, 10 mL $27 v. $106.60

http://store.p212121.com/serological-pipettes/ http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/p7615?lang...

Part of the reason that these pricing issues exist is that many universities negotiate from list price instead of absolute price.

For example, give us 40% off of list price instead of asking how much does this actually cost. Fisher will then have insanely high list prices and accounting thinks it is a win while researchers get burned. Researchers can go around purchasing, but often this requires additional paperwork.

Here is a section from a 48 university pool in Ohio, request for proposal asking for percent off of list price (not actual price): https://www.evernote.com/shard/s32/sh/cada2b94-2214-44e9-8d8...

Post reply on HN