$550 is for catalog # FC-420-1004, which is a "mid output" 300 cycle kit. So up to 8 million reads. High output kits for 300 cycles and all 25M reads costs $1500 (FC-420-1003), also not counting sample prep. Costly little fella for OpEx.
Unconfigured Ad
Collapse
X
-
Looks to me like this is going to be more expensive per base than the MiSeq. Plus the error rate in the BaseSpace examples seems higher than the MiSeq. Very disappointing.Originally posted by misterc View Post$550 is for catalog # FC-420-1004, which is a "mid output" 300 cycle kit. So up to 8 million reads. High output kits for 300 cycles and all 25M reads costs $1500 (FC-420-1003), also not counting sample prep. Costly little fella for OpEx.
Comment
-
This just seems like a smaller and cheaper MiSeq with crappier 2-dye chemistry and samey runcosts then. I guess you might consider one if you didn't have a MiSeq already, but there's nothing new for any lab that already has any decent instrument on site.
Comment
-
300 cycles and 16M reads (Illumina spec) for a MiSeq v2 kit is $1000. So, you're getting more MiniSeq reads but for a price increase that ends up keeping the cost per base about... yeah, the same. (~2E-5 cents per base if my napkin math is right)
And what JBKri said about error rates-- comparing to one of my last MiSeq runs, the error rates are about double. Is that typical for the 2-dye chemistry?
Comment
-
Okay, so basically no cost-per-read advantage over the MiSeq either. I don't mind paying an extra $50 per run to double my read lengths. But if I were buying a new machine, that wouldn't be worth the extra $100k down payment plus the maintenance, so there's a place for it.
Comment
-
Double or more is typical in my tests of NextSeq, for example. But, the optics are different as well as the dye, so it's hard to say whether the 2-dye system causes it.Originally posted by Jessica_L View PostAnd what JBKri said about error rates-- comparing to one of my last MiSeq runs, the error rates are about double. Is that typical for the 2-dye chemistry?
Comment
-
V1 was around 5x or more the error rate of MiSeq, IIRC. V2 was closer to 2x. I only tested the very early V2 kits, though, though because it had major issues with bar-code calling for a long time, so we kept using V1.
Comment
-
2-channel imaging will always struggle to keep the intensities straight amongst the 3 lit bases in 2 images. Everything gets dimmer and less pure in signal as you go from cycle to cycle. This likely is what will drive higher error rates, as I doubt the SBS chemistry is to blame.
Comment
-
There is a cost / read advantage if you are doing 2 x 150 PE sequencing. 50% of the capital cost of the MiSeq and the NextSeq-esque wash system also means less maintenance than the MiSeq.Originally posted by jwfoley View PostOkay, so basically no cost-per-read advantage over the MiSeq either.
Overally though, looks like it is targeted to researchers seeking to trade off the lower up front cost for slightly higher run costs and reduced capacity.Last edited by Ingeneious; 01-26-2016, 02:43 PM.
Comment
-
Info from Illumina:
The MiniSeq is similar to the technology utilised with our NextSeq platform based on 2-channel SBS chemistry.
Pricing Information
MiniSeq System (SY-420-1001): £35,653
MiniSeq Basic Plan (20004132): £3,350 for 1 additional year’s cover
MiniSeq Comprehensive Plan (20004133): £4,021 for 1 additional year’s cover
So upfront and service costs are half a MiSeq.Code:High Output Kit 2 x 150 (300bp) 7.5 25 FC-420-1003 1,046 High Output Kit 2 x 75 (150 bp) 3.75 25 FC-420-1002 652 High Output Kit 1 x 75 (75 bp) 1.875 25 FC-420-1001 558 Mid Output Kit 2 x 150 (300 bp) 2.4 8 FC-420-1004 384
Output for counting experiments is the same as MiSeq v3 chemistry (25 M reads)
The only thing it lacks are long paired reads 2x300 bp (but those kits are failing at the moment anyway...) and with NexteraXT many of our fragments are shorter than 300 bp anyway...
I think knowing what I know now...I'd probably buy one...specs are only going to improve.
Comment
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by SEQadmin2
CRISPR/Cas9 sparked the gene editing revolution for both research and therapeutics.1 But this system still showed severe issues that limited its applications. The most prominent were the heavy reliance on PAM sequences, delivery limitations, double-stranded breaks that prompt unintended edits and cell death, and editing inefficiency (both in targeting and in knock-in reliability).
Despite this, “CRISPR helped turn genome editing from a specialized technique into...-
Channel: Articles
07-31-2026, 11:01 AM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
| Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 08-20-2026, 11:17 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
08-20-2026, 11:17 AM
|
||
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 08-18-2026, 10:05 AM
|
0 responses
20 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
08-18-2026, 10:05 AM
|
||
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 08-13-2026, 12:22 PM
|
0 responses
42 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
08-13-2026, 12:22 PM
|
||
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 08-11-2026, 10:35 AM
|
0 responses
32 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
08-11-2026, 10:35 AM
|
Comment