Thanks everyone for your interest in the OpenPCR project! We’re really happy to be working with Kickstarter to get OpenPCR up and running. Get involved, get kits, get info at our kickstarter home page: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/930368578/openpcr-open-source-biotech-on-your-desktop

Best,
Tito and Josh

The job of a thermocycler is to implement a set of temperature changes in a reaction volume. The biological requirement for PCR is to implement a set of temperature changes such as this:

Repeat 30 times:

1. Denature at 95 C for 30 seconds
2. Anneal at 64 C for 45 seconds
3. Extend at 73 C for 45 seconds

If you add up the times required, the biological requirements of this reaction take 50 minutes. However it also takes time for the PCR machine to transition between each set of temperatures, which is effectively wasted time. Here’s where the speed of the PCR machine comes in. If the PCR machine is capable of changing 2 C/s, then starting from 20 C the above reaction would take 66 minutes. However if it was only capable of changing 0.5 C/s, the above would take nearly twice as long: 114 minutes.

When we sat down to design a low cost thermocycler, we had options that were cheap but slow, such as relying on convection and radiation to cool the heat block. We opted instead to go with a more complex peltier cooling solution so the machine would be faster: our prototype currently ramps at about 2 C/s.

Why did we feel speed was so important? There’s two reasons.

My formal background is in computer science. When writing new software code, I do not write it correctly the first time. I may have a design flaw, or simply have made some mistakes. However I’m able to get rapid feedback, correct the issue, and test it again, so making mistakes is not a problem at all. In software, it’s typically possible to get feedback in a time ranging from seconds for small changes to at most about 10 minutes to run a well designed test suite on a modestly sized application. That rapid feedback cycle not only allows engineering projects to proceed rapidly, but it is also a large part of how the novice developer learns the art of software development.

When I work in biology, my experience is anything but that. Experiments (or design-build-test cycles) run anywhere from hours for simple operations, to days if cells must be grown, to weeks if DNA must be synthesized, to years for long-running clinical trials. Faster PCR cannot solve all of that, but it can do its part for the experiments where it is critical.

For example, I’ve been working to create a SNP genotyping protocol which would allow people to read any SNP of interest from their own DNA. It’s complex and involves DNA extraction, PCR, and a gel run. Currently it takes the better part of a day to complete; reducing it so it could be run twice a day would be a big win, especially considering someone new to biology is likely to make mistakes the first couple times. We should all be thinking about how we can make design-build-test cycles faster when we create tools for biology.

The second reason is a little more technical. The PCR reaction makes use of a “thermostable” polymerase enzyme, which really means that the polymerase doesn’t denature and cease to function right away at the denaturing temperatures of PCR. In actuality the polymerase has a half-life which is reduced as temperature increases. At the end of a 25 cycle PCR run, the majority of the polymerase may in fact be destroyed, which is a limiting factor in the amount of amplification possible.

That can be a problem if you’re starting from a very small amount of DNA, as may be the case in a forensics application. It is also important if your upstream DNA preparation protocol is sub-par. For example, suppose a DIYbio enthusiast was doing sushi DNA barcoding. While they have access to an enormous amount of DNA to begin with, they may use a lower-cost DNA extraction method which doesn’t remove as many PCR inhibitors as a Qiagen extraction kit would. That’s not a problem so long as you’re still able to get enough amplification for sequencing, which you can do by extending the number of PCR cycles so long as you have enough working polymerase left.

So faster PCR can introduce resilience to overcome poorer upstream processing, and if that enables you to get the same results with cheaper reagents, that’s another win for everyone.

First off, let me extend a warm welcome to everyone that’s taken an interest in this project. Over the past two months I’ve been extremely busy with the design and testing of the OpenPCR machine and getting a prototype ready to demonstrate at the Maker Faire, so haven’t had the time to blog about it until now.

I wanted to talk a little about why we undertook this project. Building a PCR machine is something that Tito and I first talked about nearly a year and a half ago, but the project only got started in earnest this February, after Tito and I discussed it driving back from the Outlaw Biology symposium in LA. What really made me jump on it was that I had heard from one too many people that this needed to be done, and I certainly thought it was doable, but I hadn’t seen much progress in actually building a thermocycler to date.

There are really two core benefits I see to a machine like OpenPCR. The first is a drastically lower price point. The cheapest commercial unit I’m aware of costs $4000, with other units easily running up to $10,000. There is no reason these machines have to cost so much. While they have to be accurate, the basic technology is quite mature. The high price point has more to do with the traditional biotech market than it does with the complexity of the machine. Academic and industrial labs can afford these high prices, but there is increasing demand from garage biotech companies, labs in developing nations, the DIYbio community, and even high schools for PCR machines, and OpenPCR was designed to serve these new users.

A common objection to this argument is that “thermocyclers can be found on eBay for $100″, so why re-invent the wheel? eBay can be the solution for some people, but it’s far from a solution for everyone. The $100 eBay thermocycler is actually quite elusive, $300 machines are much more common. It can take quite some time to find the better deals. Even then, these machines are commonly sold “as-is”, which frequently means broken. I stopped buying lab equipment from eBay three years ago for this reason. And even if you do get a working machine for $300, it’s an antique unit without modern features such as a heated lid, and the temperature ramp times are often pathetic.

The second core benefit to building OpenPCR was to create a substrate for further hacking. We’d eventually like to add quantitative functionality to OpenPCR, and I know others who would like to develop more automation around it. You have to walk before you can run, so building a working thermocycler gives us all a starting ground for the more ambitious projects to come.

One of our main goals for the OpenPCR project is to enable people to do PCR. With our first prototype we’re getting tools into the hands of people — with off the shelf parts, flexible design, and free control software.

What about enabling people to do PCR after they have the tool? What about helping them actually run their first reaction (does anyone get it right the first time?), their second reaction, or their 50th sample. How do we enable that?

I’ve broken “Make PCR easy” into 3 chunks:

1. Make mistakes!
2. Share mistakes!
3. Learn from mistakes!

Software
Sharing: twitter, facebook, human readable protocols
Troubleshooting: “Help!!” – heres a “troubleshooting” process for both newbies and veterans: https://www.bio.uio.no/bot/ascomycetes/PCR.troubleshooting.html

Other stuff
Since it’s a given that your first few reactions on a new machine won’t work, is there a standard curriculum used to train newbies? A sampler that opens your eyes to several PCR techniques?
Or a “is my PCR machine working correctly” wet/dry test? We are proposing that people build their own PCR machines, which hasn’t been done before.