Maybe, MGISEQ is better.
-
-
Done! Two years late! -
For what it's worth (there's very littel traffic here anyway):
I think this should be renamed back to Complete Genomics, and a new forum should be created for MGISEQ instruments. Most of the questions/answers here are either 1) not relevant to MGI or CG, or 2) they're CG-data/analysis specific questions. The MGI instruments have basically thrown away all the sequencing technology used by CG, and only the Nanoball/'clustering' method is retained. The instruments are quite different too.
Cheers,
Scott.Comment
-
I agree with you. Now the naming should be changed to DNBSEQ according to the company website.Originally posted by ECO View Post
Comment
-
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...07-31-2026, 11:01 AM
Comment