How to sequence your DNA for <$2k

Commercial sequencing vs DIY cost

• Multiple commenters note that consumer whole‑genome sequencing (WGS) from services like Nebula, Dante, etc. is already around $300–$500, often with 30x coverage; the “$1000 genome” has been reality at scale for years.
• The article’s ~$2k budget is seen as misleading because it includes buying hardware (MinION, extraction tools), whereas commercial labs amortize million‑dollar sequencers over many samples.
• Some argue that for most people an exome or even plain genotyping (vs full WGS) would be cheaper and more appropriate.

Nanopore vs sequencing‑by‑synthesis (Illumina etc.)

• There’s debate over whether we’re in a “nanopore era”: several insist clinical work is still dominated by sequencing‑by‑synthesis due to lower error rates and cost per base.
• Others counter that nanopore is now central for long‑read use cases (structural variation, plasmids, some diagnostics, field work, hybrid assemblies) and is improving with newer flow cells and basecalling models.
• Key point: nanopore per‑read error is relatively high, but high coverage and consensus can yield accurate results; however, that requires multiple flow cells and careful sample prep, not what the article achieved (<1x coverage).

Data quality, sample prep, and the DIY attempt

• Several practitioners say the article’s flow cell with only ~600 active pores was likely faulty or poorly stored; typical cells should have more active pores, and vendors often replace true duds.
• Others suspect poor sample preparation blocked pores; nanopore output is described as highly sensitive to prep skill.
• Commenters see value in publishing a “negative result” but stress the experiment’s coverage was far too low to be informative.

Privacy, de‑anonymization, and trust in companies

• Strong concern about DTC firms: class actions over web trackers leaking trait information, long delays, failed samples, and questions about sequencing quality.
• Several emphasize that once a company holds your genome, future hacks, sales, or acquisitions can expose data, even if current policies look acceptable.
• De‑anonymization is argued to be straightforward when relatives’ DNA and family trees already exist in other databases; “anonymous” testing by using fake names doesn’t prevent linkage to known parents/relatives.
• Some prefer university or clinical labs with stricter medical regulation; one new company in the thread claims to be a regulated medical provider and stresses HIPAA/SOC2 compliance, but skeptics note 23andMe once had reassuring language too.

Interpretation, utility, and hype

• Many comments say DTC genomics is often underwhelming: most common variants only slightly shift risks, which laypeople misread as alarming.
• There’s specific criticism of a “cottage industry” of consultants/websites over‑interpreting SNP data (e.g., MTHFR, COMT) and selling supplements.
• Others describe real value when sequencing is used in a medical framework: carrier screening, embryo selection, drug‑response guidance; but they stress the need for professional interpretation and confirmatory testing.
• A few argue personal WGS has limited predictive health value without epigenetic context and may mainly generate anxiety, so targeted accredited tests may be more practical.

Access and alternatives

• In the EU, commenters report it’s surprisingly hard to find reliable, timely WGS providers; some mention long waitlists or failed orders.
• Suggestions include specific EU companies, sequencing through university cores, or portable educational labs (e.g., BentoLab) for learning lab techniques rather than for clinically useful personal genomes.