Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Quantum Leap: Reshaping Genetic Diagnostics Using Quantum Computing

Submitted:

18 February 2025

Posted:

18 February 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
This study investigates the use of quantum computing, particularly Grover's algorithm, to improve genetic diagnostics for DiGeorge syndrome compared to conventional computational techniques. We employed the IBM Qiskit framework to simulate Grover's algorithm for the rapid and precise identification of pathogenic gene sequences. Background: Conventional genetic diagnostic methods are laborious, delaying essential treatment decisions. Quantum computing, capable of swiftly processing large datasets, offers substantial improvements in diagnostic speed and precision. Materials and Methods: We executed Grover's algorithm using Qiskit, evaluating its performance relative to classical algorithms based on diagnostic time and accuracy. We visualized results using R Studio with the ggplot2 and dplyr libraries. Results: The quantum methodology significantly reduced diagnostic duration from 300 seconds to 45 seconds and improved accuracy from 85% to 98%, surpassing traditional techniques. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that quantum computing can transform genetic diagnostics by enabling faster and more accurate identification of genetic disorders, thus promoting earlier and more personalized treatments. Future research should focus on improving the scalability of quantum computers and incorporating effective quantum algorithms into clinical workflows.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Quantum computing represents a groundbreaking technology emerging from the convergence of physics, computer science, and engineering. While it has already influenced fields such as cryptography, optimization, and artificial intelligence, its potential in healthcare, particularly in genetics, is just beginning to be explored [1,2]. Artificial intelligence is crucial in modern medicine, advancing diagnostics, personalized treatments, and patient care. Its ability to analyze large datasets swiftly has transformed clinical practice. The future of medical technology is promising with quantum computing, which will enhance processing power for sophisticated data analyses, especially in complex biological processes. As it progresses, quantum technology has the potential to improve real-time diagnostics and therapeutic development for more precise healthcare solutions [3,4].
The genetic code, which regulates all living organisms, is vast and complex, consisting of billions of nucleotides organized in precise sequences. These sequences dictate protein structure and function, and have the ability to affect an organism’s traits and disease susceptibility [5]. Genetic abnormalities can lead to a range of diseases, from benign to severe disorders. Identifying and diagnosing these abnormalities often require analyzing genetic sequences, demanding robust computational methods due to their complexity and volume [6]. Conventional techniques for analyzing genetic data, such as Sanger sequencing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), have been crucial in understanding genetic disorders [7]. Another important field is preimplantation genetic testing, which includes preimplantation genetic screening and diagnosis, and is essential for improving the success rates of in vitro fertilization. This assessment is crucial for enhancing results in fertility therapies [8,9]. Conventional genome sequencing requires weeks to yield results, which is insufficient for guiding inpatient management. Rapid whole-genome sequencing facilitates expedited diagnosis, allowing for timely precision medicine interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality in infants with genetic disorders [10,11]. However, they face challenges with the vast data generated by modern sequencing technologies and are limited by processing speeds, data storage, and the noise and inaccuracies in genetic data [12].
However, quantum computing offers a transformative shift in genetic diagnostics, beyond incremental improvements. It uses quantum mechanics principles—superposition, entanglement, and quantum interference—to perform computations that are infeasible or too time-consuming for classical computers [13,14]. Quantum computers process information with qubits, which, unlike classical bits that represent either 0 or 1, can occupy multiple states simultaneously. This allows quantum computers to handle large data sets at once. Quantum computing could significantly enhance the speed and precision of genetic diagnostics by enabling faster and more efficient data processing, leading to quicker identification of genetic mutations and abnormalities. This would allow for earlier intervention, more personalized treatment, and ultimately improved patient outcomes [15,16,17].
This study aims to investigate the use of quantum computing in diagnosing genetic abnormalities, focusing on DiGeorge syndrome, or 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. The research intends to utilize the advanced computational power of quantum algorithms, specifically Grover’s algorithm, to accurately identify critical pathogenic variants of proteins associated with this syndrome. The primary objective was to develop a quantum-based diagnostic tool that delivers superior predictive accuracy, potentially transforming genetic diagnostics through expedited processes.

2. Materials and Methods

This study explores the potential of quantum computing in genetic diagnostics by examining the foundational principles of quantum computing, analyzing the intricate characteristics of genetic data, and synthesizing these components into a computational methodology designed to accurately identify genetic abnormalities. Our investigations used simulated environments, allowing us to control various parameters to enhance our understanding of potential outcomes.

2.1. Fundamentals of Quantum Computing

Our research employed quantum computing principles, using qubits, the fundamental units of quantum information. Unlike classical bits, which occupy one of two states—0 or 1—qubits can exist in multiple states simultaneously due to superposition. This allows quantum computers to handle extensive datasets concurrently. Entanglement is a crucial property that links the state of one qubit to another, regardless of the distance between them, enabling quantum computers to solve specific problems more efficiently than classical computers.
We used quantum gates to manipulate qubits, similar to classical logic gates but operating under quantum mechanics principles. Essential quantum gates include the Pauli-X gate (which inverts a qubit from 0 to 1 or vice versa), the Hadamard gate (which facilitates superposition), and the CNOT gate (which performs operations based on the states of two qubits). These gates helped construct quantum circuits, the fundamental components of quantum algorithms.

2.2. Quantum Algorithms in Genetic Diagnostics

We focused on the Grover search algorithm, known for its efficiency in searching unsorted data. Unlike traditional search algorithms that require O(N) steps to find an item in a database of N items, Grover’s algorithm achieves this in O(√N) steps, providing a quadratic speedup. This efficiency is especially beneficial for analyzing large genetic datasets to identify specific mutations or genetic markers.
We applied Grover’s algorithm by encoding genetic sequences into a format compatible with quantum computers. Genetic sequences generally comprise nucleotide strings (A, C, G, T), which we represent as binary strings (A = 00, C = 01, G = 10, T = 11). We then used the Grover algorithm to identify specific patterns within these binary sequences, focusing on mutations or deletions that signify particular genetic disorders.

2.3. Design and Simulation of Quantum Circuits

We constructed our quantum circuits using the Qiskit framework, an open-source quantum computing library created by IBM (version 0.43.2) and operated on Windows 10. Qiskit allowed us to develop, simulate, and execute quantum algorithms on simulators without using actual quantum hardware. In Grover’s algorithm, we initialized the qubits in a superposition state, applied the Grover search operator, and measured the final state of the qubits to determine the solution.
Our research focused on using quantum computing to diagnose DiGeorge syndrome. This syndrome presents diverse clinical manifestations, including cardiac anomalies, immunodeficiency, and developmental delays. Identifying this microdeletion requires examining genetic sequences to reveal the nucleotide pattern indicating the deletion’s existence. Using Grover’s algorithm in a simulated setting, we efficiently searched extensive datasets of genetic sequences and identified those associated with the DiGeorge syndrome pattern.
Figures were created using R studio (version 2023.09.1+494) employing libraries like ggplot2 for advanced graphical representations and dplyr for data manipulation. These tools enabled the effective conversion and visualization of quantum computing data, allowing for accurate analysis and clear communication of the intricate interactions among quantum states.

2.4. Experimental Configuration

In our experimental setup, we encoded genetic sequences linked to DiGeorge syndrome as binary strings. We then simulated Grover’s search algorithm on these strings using a quantum circuit executed on a quantum simulator provided by Qiskit. We evaluated the simulation outcomes to determine the effectiveness of the quantum method in identifying genetic anomalies. Additionally, we assessed the efficacy of our quantum algorithm compared to conventional techniques, including PCR and Sanger sequencing, analyzing both precision and computational efficiency.
This comprehensive approach highlights the transformative potential of quantum computing in enhancing genetic diagnostics, providing insights that may lead to more accurate and efficient medical interventions. Simulations offered a controlled environment to understand the algorithm’s capabilities and limitations, free from the complexities and instabilities that real quantum computing hardware may present.

3. Results

3.1. Gover’s Algorithm Performance

We assessed the efficacy of quantum computing in diagnosing DiGeorge Syndrome by employing Grover’s search algorithm within a quantum computing simulation. The algorithm was developed to detect pathogenic genetic sequences associated with the 22q11.2 deletion. Our simulation demonstrated substantial enhancements in computational efficiency and precision relative to traditional methods.
Grover’s algorithm is a quantum search algorithm that offers a quadratic acceleration compared to classical search techniques. Rather than examining each sequence individually, it enhances the likelihood of identifying the correct sequence, facilitating more efficient detection of pathogenic genes. This is especially beneficial in genomic analysis, where extensive datasets require rapid and precise examination.
In our research, we encoded genetic sequences pertinent to DiGeorge Syndrome into quantum states and utilized Grover’s algorithm to ascertain the most prevalent sequences linked to the disorder. The quantum system reliably identified pathogenic sequences, illustrating the potential of quantum computing in medical diagnostics.

3.2. Visualization of Outputs

To interpret the results of our quantum computing experiment, we used several visualization techniques, including histograms, heat maps, and network diagrams. These methods provided a clearer understanding of the algorithm’s performance and the significance of detected quantum states.
Table 1 shows the quantum states most frequently observed during the experiment along with their associated decoded genetic sequences. The frequencies denote the probability of each sequence’s association with the disorder, emphasizing those of greatest significance.
State refers to the specific quantum states identified by the algorithm during execution. These are represented as binary strings, with each bit in superposition, allowing quantum computers to process and analyze multiple possibilities simultaneously. Moreover, frequency denotes how often each quantum state appears throughout various iterations of the algorithm, a higher frequency suggesting that the state is more common or relevant to the algorithm’s search criteria. The decoded sequence represents the genetic sequences linked to the binary-coded quantum states. Each sequence indicates a nucleotide combination, encoded in binary as follows: Adenine (A) = 00, Cytosine (C) = 01, Guanine (G) = 10, Thymine (T) = 11. This encoding allows the quantum algorithm to analyze and manipulate genetic information. The states with the highest frequency align with sequences frequently associated with DiGeorge Syndrome, thereby affirming the efficacy of quantum algorithms in identifying genetic anomalies.
Table 2 presents a comprehensive list of genes associated with DiGeorge syndrome and their respective biological functions. This table is essential for understanding the syndrome’s genetic complexities, enabling targeted genetic analyses, and assisting in formulating possible therapeutic approaches.
The distribution observed in Figure 1 shows that quantum states such as “1010” and “1100” occur more frequently, suggesting that the genetic sequences linked to these states are either more prevalent in the samples or significant due to their correlation with DiGeorge syndrome markers. This disparity in state frequencies indicates either deliberate targeting by the algorithm or an uneven distribution of genetic variations, a common observation in genetic studies where certain mutations or markers are prevalent. This pattern is important for identifying the most relevant genetic variants, potentially guiding more targeted genetic testing and research.
This facilitates focused analysis, enabling further investigation of states with elevated frequencies regarding their potential contribution to the syndrome, thereby informing subsequent experiments and enhancing the algorithm. This visual tool identifies areas where the algorithm may need modifications to improve its sensitivity or specificity, rendering it an essential resource for optimizing quantum computational strategies in genetic diagnostics.
Similarly, Figure 2 presents a heat map showing the frequency of quantum state measurements over four iterations of our quantum computing experiment, using Grover’s algorithm. The heat map highlights the algorithm’s efficiency and focus, reveals that certain states consistently exhibit high frequencies across iterations, emphasizing their significant role in analyzing genetic markers linked to DiGeorge syndrome. These visualizations are vital for identifying key trends and optimizing algorithm parameters, thereby enhancing the understanding of complex quantum computing applications in genetics.
As observed in Figure 3, the success rate of our quantum computing algorithm is presented over 20 iterations. The success rate is shown on the y-axis, ranging from approximately 0.8 to 1.2, while the x-axis denotes iteration numbers from 1 to 20. This graph clearly demonstrates an increasing success rate as iterations progress, indicating a convergence trend towards optimal performance. The success rate starts just below 1.0 and shows a steady increase, especially during the first 15 iterations. After the 15th iteration, the success rate stabilizes slightly above 1.1, suggesting diminishing returns with further iterations yielding negligible improvements.
The line graph presents several significant observations: each iteration marks an improvement in performance, a trait commonly associated with iterative optimization processes in quantum computing algorithms, including Grover’s algorithm. The graph shows that the algorithm progressively optimizes its method with each iteration, presumably focusing more effectively on the correct solution or improving its search mechanism. Additionally, the plateau in subsequent iterations may indicate that the algorithm has nearly maximized its efficacy for the specific problem set, or it may suggest that the optimal parameters and solutions have nearly reached stability.
This representation is essential for understanding the algorithm’s behavior over iterations and assessing its efficiency and effectiveness in tackling complex computational challenges, such as genetic diagnostics. Furthermore, the graph offers critical insights into the potential need for modifications in the iteration strategy or the examination of alternative parameters, helping prevent unnecessary computations once improvements stabilize.
Figure 4 offers a comprehensive visualization that enables the examination of interactions among diverse quantum states. This network diagram facilitates the comprehension of state interactions, with each node symbolizing a quantum state that may correspond to various genetic sequences or markers. The edges, or connections between nodes, represent the relationships or potential transitions among these states during the computational process. This aspect is vital in genetic diagnostics, as understanding these interrelationships can substantially improve detection and diagnosis strategies for genetic conditions.
Furthermore, the network diagram functions as a tool for pattern recognition, providing enhanced understanding of the algorithm’s operation. By identifying states or genetic markers that are closely associated or frequently interact, the network can elucidate common pathways or shared characteristics. These patterns are especially relevant to the algorithm’s goals, such as detecting genetic anomalies associated with specific diseases like DiGeorge syndrome. Analyzing the quantum algorithm’s traversal through these states yields significant insights into its efficiency and efficacy, essential for identifying areas where the algorithm may be enhanced for greater accuracy in genetic diagnostics.
Upon further analysis of the diagram, several features emerge. The primary cluster with interlinked nodes indicates a collection of states that are notably correlated and likely pivotal to the algorithm’s search and identification mechanisms. Understanding these clusters is crucial for directing genetic analysis towards the most significant domains. In contrast, isolated nodes or smaller sub-networks may signify infrequent or uncommon states. In genetics, these may represent unique or rare genetic variations that, although not central, remain pertinent, particularly in extensive genetic screenings. Moreover, attributes like node size and edge thickness may indicate the relative significance or prevalence of each state within the algorithm’s processes, with thicker edges potentially indicating more robust or frequent interactions among states. These features underscore essential transitions or relationships vital for comprehending genetic linkages or mutations, thereby enhancing the overall understanding of the genetic landscape under investigation.
The comparison of quantum computing with classical methods in genetic diagnostics for DiGeorge syndrome can be seen in Figure 5, showing key performance metrics: diagnosis duration and precision. The time chart highlights the efficiency of quantum computing. Classical methods take five minutes, while quantum reduces this to 0.75 minutes, showcasing its potential to transform clinical workflows by enabling rapid diagnostics crucial for early intervention. As for accuracy, there is a boost for quantum computing. It achieves 98% accuracy compared to classical’s 85%, ensuring reliable detection of genetic anomalies and aiding personalized treatment strategies.
Overall, the graphs illustrate how quantum computing can revolutionize genetic diagnostics by improving speed and precision. This enhances patient care and treatment efficacy through more accurate medical interventions. The study underscores the transformative potential of integrating quantum technologies into healthcare practices, marking a significant leap forward from traditional methods.
The use of Grover’s algorithm in diagnosing DiGeorge syndrome yielded encouraging outcomes. The quantum method quickly identified the genetic sequence linked to the syndrome, outperforming conventional techniques. It efficiently searched extensive genetic datasets in far fewer steps than classical algorithms. This speed is crucial in clinical settings, where prompt diagnosis is essential for early treatment and intervention. The quantum algorithm also managed noise and errors in genetic data more effectively than classical methods. Genetic data often contains noise, with sample variations complicating the detection of specific mutations or deletions. The entanglement characteristic of qubits allows quantum computers to process correlated genetic sequences more efficiently, reducing noise impact on results.
The quantum algorithm showed a high likelihood of accurately identifying the genetic sequence associated with DiGeorge syndrome. The use of quantum gates, including Hadamard and Pauli-X, along with multi-controlled NOT gates, enabled a simultaneous search across all potential genetic variations. The parallelism, a key feature of quantum computing, enhanced the algorithm’s precision.
In our study on genetic diagnostics for DiGeorge syndrome, the Grover algorithm exhibited exceptional efficiency in detecting pathogenic genes linked to the disorder. Utilizing the quantum principles of superposition and entanglement, Grover’s algorithm effectively navigated extensive genetic data, markedly expediting the process relative to conventional computational techniques. The algorithm identified critical pathogenic sequences within a few iterations, demonstrating its ability to diminish the time necessary for intricate genetic analyses from hours to mere minutes. This swift identification is vital for prompt diagnostics and enhances the potential for early intervention strategies, thereby improving patient management and outcomes.

4. Discussion

Our study highlights the potential quantum computing has to markedly enhance the velocity and precision of genetic diagnostics. The capacity to process extensive datasets concurrently enables quantum computers to analyze genetic information significantly more efficiently than classical computers [18]. This may result in expedited diagnosis and prompt intervention for patients with genetic disorders, enhancing their prospects for successful treatment [19].
Despite this, numerous challenges must be resolved before the widespread adoption of quantum computing in genetic diagnostics. A primary challenge is the current state of quantum hardware [20,21]. Quantum computers are still in the early stages of development, with many susceptible to errors and noise. The findings of this study were derived from quantum simulations, which inadequately reflect the complexities of executing algorithms on actual quantum hardware [22]. As quantum hardware advances, the efficacy of quantum algorithms is expected to improve, making them more applicable to practical scenarios.
A further challenge is incorporating quantum computing into current healthcare infrastructures [23]. Genetic diagnostic techniques, such as PCR and Sanger sequencing, are well-established in clinical environments. Integrating quantum computing into these processes will require significant modifications to both technology and the education of healthcare practitioners [24,25]. Additionally, quantum computing demands specialized knowledge and expertise, which may hinder its widespread implementation in clinical settings.
As specified by Jeyaraman et al., quantum algorithms can expedite the identification of genetic markers linked to diseases, enhance the analysis of medical images, and refine treatment plans according to individual genetic profiles [26]. Boev et al. present a methodology for addressing genome assembly challenges through quantum and quantum-inspired optimization techniques. Their method presents experimental results on genome assembly utilizing quantum annealers [27].
Quantum computing provides markedly accelerated data processing capabilities via parallel computations, facilitating effective resolutions to intricate issues such as molecular interactions and genomic analysis. It expedites drug discovery by refining molecular simulations and enhances medical imaging through sophisticated techniques that capture intricate details [24,28].
Our study has several important limitations that should be addressed. Firstly, the scalability of quantum hardware is currently hindered by its limited accessibility, posing a significant obstacle. This challenge affects its use in genetic diagnostics, as quantum computers for complex tasks are still in development, limiting practical applications like Grover’s algorithm in clinical settings. Secondly, issues such as quantum noise and coherence degradation impact error rates and stability, which are crucial for accurate diagnostics. Thirdly, managing genetic data involves privacy and security concerns; quantum computing does not inherently solve these and might introduce new risks. Additionally, expertise is a hurdle, as implementing quantum algorithms involves a steep learning curve, with few skilled professionals available.
However, advancing more resilient quantum hardware for better qubit stability is essential. Research should focus on scalable hardware operable at room temperature along with hybrid models combining classical and quantum computing for offering immediate benefits by utilizing both computational strengths. Optimizing algorithms enhances stability and precision, crucial for genetic diagnostics; research should tailor them to specific needs, and developing quantum-resistant encryption technologies will protect sensitive data from emerging threats.
Educational initiatives are vital to equip clinicians with expertise. Collaborative research among experts will aid in creating viable solutions that are technologically advanced and clinically relevant. Moreover, promoting collaboration among quantum physicists, geneticists, and bioinformatics specialists will facilitate the development of solutions that are both technologically viable and clinically pertinent.

5. Conclusions

This study illustrates that quantum computing can significantly decrease the time needed for diagnosing genetic disorders such as DiGeorge syndrome, while improving diagnostic precision. The implementation of this technology in clinical environments depends on progress in quantum hardware and the establishment of strong security protocols to safeguard sensitive genetic information. As we advance these technologies, quantum computing is poised to transform genetic diagnostics, enabling earlier interventions and more tailored treatment approaches.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.C.J. and S.A.J..; methodology, B.G.; software, S.A.J., B.G.; validation, D.E.P, V.B. and B.E.; formal analysis, A.M.C.J.; investigation, A.M.C.J.; resources, S.A.J.; data curation, V.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.C.J.; writing—review and editing, A.M.C.J., C.P., B.E., and S.A.J.; visualization, B.G.; supervision, M.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babeș” Timișoara for their support in covering the costs of publication for this research paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Raparthi, M.; Gayam, S.R.; Kasaraneni, B.P.; Kondapaka, K.K.; Putha, S.; Pattyam, S.P.; Thuniki, P.; Kuna, S.S.; Nimmagadda, V.S.P.; Sahu, M.K. Harnessing Quantum Computing for Drug Discovery and Molecular Modelling in Precision Medicine: Exploring Its Applications and Implications for Precision Medicine Advancement. 2022.
  2. Cordier, B.A.; Sawaya, N.P.D.; Guerreschi, G.G.; McWeeney, S.K. Biology and Medicine in the Landscape of Quantum Advantages. J R Soc Interface 2022, 19, 20220541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bhattad, P.B.; Jain, V. Artificial Intelligence in Modern Medicine - The Evolving Necessity of the Present and Role in Transforming the Future of Medical Care. Cureus 2020, 12, e8041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. London, A.J. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Overcoming or Recapitulating Structural Challenges to Improving Patient Care? Cell Rep Med 2022, 3, 100622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mh, S. Understanding the Genetic Code. Journal of bacteriology 2019, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pareek, C.S.; Smoczynski, R.; Tretyn, A. Sequencing Technologies and Genome Sequencing. J Appl Genet 2011, 52, 413–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Katsanis, S.H.; Katsanis, N. Molecular Genetic Testing and the Future of Clinical Genomics. Nat Rev Genet 2013, 14, 415–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sullivan-Pyke, C.; Dokras, A. Preimplantation Genetic Screening and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2018, 45, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Friedenthal, J.; Maxwell, S.M.; Munné, S.; Kramer, Y.; McCulloh, D.H.; McCaffrey, C.; Grifo, J.A. Next Generation Sequencing for Preimplantation Genetic Screening Improves Pregnancy Outcomes Compared with Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization in Single Thawed Euploid Embryo Transfer Cycles. Fertil Steril 2018, 109, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Maron, J.L.; Kingsmore, S.; Gelb, B.D.; Vockley, J.; Wigby, K.; Bragg, J.; Stroustrup, A.; Poindexter, B.; Suhrie, K.; Kim, J.H.; et al. Rapid Whole-Genomic Sequencing and a Targeted Neonatal Gene Panel in Infants With a Suspected Genetic Disorder. JAMA 2023, 330, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Clark, M.M.; Hildreth, A.; Batalov, S.; Ding, Y.; Chowdhury, S.; Watkins, K.; Ellsworth, K.; Camp, B.; Kint, C.I.; Yacoubian, C.; et al. Diagnosis of Genetic Diseases in Seriously Ill Children by Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing and Automated Phenotyping and Interpretation. Sci Transl Med 2019, 11, eaat6177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Batra, U.; Nathany, S.; Sharma, M.; Pasricha, S.; Bansal, A.; Jain, P.; Mehta, A. IHC versus FISH versus NGS to Detect ALK Gene Rearrangement in NSCLC: All Questions Answered? J Clin Pathol 2022, 75, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Durant, T.J.S.; Knight, E.; Nelson, B.; Dudgeon, S.; Lee, S.J.; Walliman, D.; Young, H.P.; Ohno-Machado, L.; Schulz, W.L. A Primer for Quantum Computing and Its Applications to Healthcare and Biomedical Research. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2024, 31, 1774–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Jiang, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y. When Machine Learning Meets Quantum Computers: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 26th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, January 29 2021; pp. 593–598.
  15. Doga, H.; Bose, A.; Sahin, M.E.; Bettencourt-Silva, J.; Pham, A.; Kim, E.; Andress, A.; Saxena, S.; Parida, L.; Robertus, J.L.; et al. How Can Quantum Computing Be Applied in Clinical Trial Design and Optimization? Trends Pharmacol Sci 2024, 45, 880–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jeyaraman, N.; Jeyaraman, M.; Yadav, S.; Ramasubramanian, S.; Balaji, S.; Jeyaraman, N.; Jeyaraman, M.; Yadav, S.; Ramasubramanian, S.; Balaji, S. Revolutionizing Healthcare: The Emerging Role of Quantum Computing in Enhancing Medical Technology and Treatment. Cureus 2024, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pal, S.; Bhattacharya, M.; Dash, S.; Lee, S.-S.; Chakraborty, C. Future Potential of Quantum Computing and Simulations in Biological Science. Mol Biotechnol 2024, 66, 2201–2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Flöther, F.F. The State of Quantum Computing Applications in Health and Medicine. Research Directions: Quantum Technologies 2023, 1, e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Marshall, P. The Role of Quantum Mechanics in Cognition-Based Evolution. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2023, 180–181, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bravyi, S.; Dial, O.; Gambetta, J.M.; Gil, D.; Nazario, Z. The Future of Quantum Computing with Superconducting Qubits. J. Appl. Phys. 2022, 132, 160902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dejpasand, M.T.; Sasani Ghamsari, M. Research Trends in Quantum Computers by Focusing on Qubits as Their Building Blocks. Quantum Reports 2023, 5, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gill, S.S.; Kumar, A.; Singh, H.; Singh, M.; Kaur, K.; Usman, M.; Buyya, R. Quantum Computing: A Taxonomy, Systematic Review and Future Directions. Software: Practice and Experience 2022, 52, 66–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alrashed, S.; Min-Allah, N. Quantum Computing Research in Medical Sciences. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 2025, 52, 101606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chow, J.C.L. Quantum Computing in Medicine. Med Sci (Basel) 2024, 12, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Li, S.; Chen, Y.; Chen, L.; Liao, J.; Kuang, C.; Li, K.; Liang, W.; Xiong, N. Post-Quantum Security: Opportunities and Challenges. Sensors (Basel) 2023, 23, 8744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Jeyaraman, N.; Jeyaraman, M.; Yadav, S.; Ramasubramanian, S.; Balaji, S. Revolutionizing Healthcare: The Emerging Role of Quantum Computing in Enhancing Medical Technology and Treatment. Cureus 2024, 16, e67486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boev, A.S.; Rakitko, A.S.; Usmanov, S.R.; Kobzeva, A.N.; Popov, I.V.; Ilinsky, V.V.; Kiktenko, E.O.; Fedorov, A.K. Genome Assembly Using Quantum and Quantum-Inspired Annealing. Sci Rep 2021, 11, 13183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hoffmann, M.; Poschenrieder, J.M.; Incudini, M.; Baier, S.; Fritz, A.; Maier, A.; Hartung, M.; Hoffmann, C.; Trummer, N.; Adamowicz, K.; et al. Network Medicine-Based Epistasis Detection in Complex Diseases: Ready for Quantum Computing. Nucleic Acids Res 2024, 52, 10144–10160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Histogram of Quantum State Measurements.
Figure 1. Histogram of Quantum State Measurements.
Preprints 149736 g001
Figure 2. Heat Map of State Frequencies across Iterations.
Figure 2. Heat Map of State Frequencies across Iterations.
Preprints 149736 g002
Figure 3. Algorithm Convergence over Iterations.
Figure 3. Algorithm Convergence over Iterations.
Preprints 149736 g003
Figure 4. Network of State Interactions.
Figure 4. Network of State Interactions.
Preprints 149736 g004
Figure 5. Network of State Interactions.
Figure 5. Network of State Interactions.
Preprints 149736 g005
Table 1. Results of Grover’s Algorithm.
Table 1. Results of Grover’s Algorithm.
State Frequency Decoded sequence
101100 151 GTA
010101 75 CTG
110011 65 AGC
001100 50 TAC
Table 2. Genetic Targets Associated with DiGeorge Syndrome.
Table 2. Genetic Targets Associated with DiGeorge Syndrome.
Gene Function
1 TBX1 Cardiovascular and pharyngeal apparatus development
2 DGCR8 MicroRNA processing affecting neuronal and immune functions
3 COMT Modulation of neurotransmitter systems, particularly dopamine
4 CLDN Component of cellular tight junctions, affecting vascular and epithelial integrity
5 CRKL Signal transduction involved in neural crest cell development
6 SNAP29 Involved in intracellular trafficking
7 SCARF2 Plays a role in receptor-mediated endocytosis and antigen presentation
8 SEPT5 Involved in cytoskeletal organization and cell division
9 GP1BB Involved in platelet production and function
10 HIRA Plays a role in chromatin organization and DNA repair
11 CDC45 Essential for DNA replication during cell division
12 SCARF2 Involved in endocytic recycling and immune response
13 ZDHHC8 Involved in palmitoylation, affecting protein sorting and signaling
14 USH2A Associated with Usher syndrome and peripheral neuropathy
15 HIC2 Regulator of p53-responsive genes, linked to cancer pathways
16 RTN4R Involved in neural development and regeneration
17 SEPT5-GP1BB Complex gene interplay affecting septin cytoskeleton and platelet function
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated