Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by gringer View Post
    Here's an article that mentions tens of gigabases of sequence per day on a single GridION node with 2000 pores:

    Oxford Nanopore Technologies has announced the presentation of DNA sequence data for the first time utilizing its proprietary superior performance electronic devices, MinION and GridION, and its innovative nanopore 'strand sequencing' technique.


    This works out to 5 megabases per pore per day (assuming full pore occupancy), or about 200kb per hour. At this rate, a 100kb sequence should complete in the 6-hour run time of a MinION (even if assuming a 1/10th read speed compared to the GridION cartridges), so I'm going to stick with my initial "plausible, based on press releases" thoughts.
    Actually, if you have access, the In Sequence report on the *ION is pretty comprehensive.

    What I am looking for at this point is someone who has used an instrument reporting what it does right now. (This could be Oxford Nanopore.) So far, it looks like the only concrete claim of that sort is the lambda genome one. If the third hand reports are accurate in this respect. Are we absolutely sure the intent of that report was not -- "in principle, given the potential of this device, it could sequence both strands of a lambda genome in a single read"?

    Yes, I realize there might be lots of data tied up by NDAs. Maybe there is high tier journal article embargo in effect that is preventing more disclosure? Oxford Nanopore may have their hands tied by British advertising regulations, not wanting to release 4% error data when they think they will hit 1% in a brief time span or some other issue. Does not matter, I think Rothberg's doubts are doubts we should all consider.

    --
    Phillip

    Comment


    • #47
      Deletion rate of 17%

      Based on Oxford Nanopore's press release (http://www.nanoporetech.com/news/press-releases/view/39) and their spelling of lambda, looks like they are trying to prepare us for lots of deletions.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Pongo_T View Post
        For the more technically minded: did Clive Brown show any primary data in the sense of simultaneously acquired nanopore current traces (there is none on the webpage, is there?) It is one thing to show that (1) strand sequencing basically works on short genomes and that (2) you have a mulitplexed nanopore chip which might be good for longer ones, but quite another to show that strand sequencing has actually successfully been done using that chip. There are lots of things where they must have made tremendous progress, not least the on-chip multiplexed 512-channel (for the Minion) voltage-clamp amplifier (CMOS-based, I understand) which has to have pretty low noise, a.s.f.
        He showed very little data. There was certainly no data showing simultaneous currents. He did show some current versus time traces and how they remove the time information to obtain a spatial trace. I did not see 64 different current levels being detected. This is not to say they don't have such data. The presentation was only 17minutes, and he had a lot to cover.

        He did show some data on how there is no degradation of the signal over a long period - which is kind of obvious, this being electrical signal and not fluorescent probes. He also showed current traces at various frequencies, but did nto specify the noise levels. From a quick visual scaling, I thought noise was ~20pA at 32kHz.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by pmiguel View Post
          Actually, if you have access, the In Sequence report on the *ION is pretty comprehensive.

          What I am looking for at this point is someone who has used an instrument reporting what it does right now. (This could be Oxford Nanopore.) So far, it looks like the only concrete claim of that sort is the lambda genome one. If the third hand reports are accurate in this respect. Are we absolutely sure the intent of that report was not -- "in principle, given the potential of this device, it could sequence both strands of a lambda genome in a single read"?

          Yes, I realize there might be lots of data tied up by NDAs. Maybe there is high tier journal article embargo in effect that is preventing more disclosure? Oxford Nanopore may have their hands tied by British advertising regulations, not wanting to release 4% error data when they think they will hit 1% in a brief time span or some other issue. Does not matter, I think Rothberg's doubts are doubts we should all consider.

          --
          Phillip
          My take on this...ONT is holding their cards very tight to their chest. And why not? Anticipation is a good thing from a sales and marketing perspective. I suspect they (ONT) will not disappoint when they are ready to provide the "hard" data.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by pmiguel View Post
            But since our reaction has been one of nearly blanket acceptance, it looks like Oxford Nanopore made the right call. Why release data when nearly everyone will accept what you say without question?
            Not everyone!

            Based on this page (http://www.nanoporetech.com/news/press-releases/view/20), ONT has raised a total of 74 million GBP ($120 million USD), with $41 million of it coming last April (meaning, they needed more money 10 months ago).

            I would be extremely surprised if they can commercialize a single molecule sequencer that requires semiconductor manufacturing for this amount of money.
            • R&D (likely electrical/sensor engineers, protein engineering/enzymologists, crystallographers, bioinformaticians, signal processing, probably more.) I would guess >50 people.
            • Instrument design/compliance (2-3)
            • Instrument manufacturing (20 ?)
            • Chip manufacturing (team to handle outsourced mfg and incoming QC)
            • Reagent manufacturing (5)
            • Quality testing of all of the above (5)
            • Licensing fees ($$ ??)
            • Worldwide sales network (20 at least?)
            • Tech support (5)
            • Application scientists (5)
            • The rest of SG&A (10)

            This is >100 people...likely what they need NOW to commercialize in the middle/end of 2012. Maybe they have it already, or maybe they are kaizen/black-belt/efficiency ninjas.


            All I know is, I saw a video of a GridION over a year ago, and we still haven't seen a fastq from it. That should set off all kinds of alarm bells.


            </coffee-fueled-skepticism>

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by pmiguel View Post
              I am just wondering though, did anyone at the presentation at AGBT ask for the read data from the lambda genome sequencing?
              --
              Phillip

              No idea about this, but a few people have been messaging them on Twitter asking for the presentation release and some data. Might be worth trying if you can get enough people tweeting them about it we may at least get a reply.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Geneus View Post
                My take on this...ONT is holding their cards very tight to their chest. And why not? Anticipation is a good thing from a sales and marketing perspective. I suspect they (ONT) will not disappoint when they are ready to provide the "hard" data.
                Okay that might be what they want. I say what we should want is data. Release the reads ONT!

                --
                Phillip

                Comment


                • #53
                  ECO -Not sure if you can read that much into the finances.

                  Solexa had raised only $40m total by the end of 2004 and were well on their way to the 1G Genetic Analyzer at that point.

                  Bear in mind this is a British company - we make a virtue out of doing a lot for very little! Clive probably still has to bring in his own tea-bags

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by nickloman View Post
                    ECO -Not sure if you can read that much into the finances.

                    Solexa had raised only $40m total by the end of 2004 and were well on their way to the 1G Genetic Analyzer at that point.
                    It's the only data I have to "read into".

                    But overall, I agree. However, the technological hurdles that ONT claims to have overcome (and packaged into a USB drive) are _far_ more complicated than a microscope pointed at a slide.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Can someone tell me how to do this math??

                      300bp/s/pore == 8.64Gbp/hr/node

                      50x coverage means 150Gbp

                      20*8.64/4 == 43.2Gbp in 15 min with 20 nodes

                      150Gbp >> 43.2Gbp???



                      "A 20-node installation, using 8,000-nanopore cartridges, is expected to deliver a complete human genome at 50-fold coverage in 15 minutes, according to the company, or 3 terabases of data per day, based on a sequencing speed of 300 bases per second. For that setup, the cost per gigabase is expected to be under $10."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Nanoporous View Post
                        He did show some data on how there is no degradation of the signal over a long period - which is kind of obvious, this being electrical signal and not fluorescent probes. He also showed current traces at various frequencies, but did nto specify the noise levels. From a quick visual scaling, I thought noise was ~20pA at 32kHz.
                        Ion Torrent doesn't use fluorescence and they have problems maintaining quality as reads get longer. And if we're talking about 10Kb+, it doesn't take much degradation rate per base to be totally useless. Then of course comes the question of, what does the quality start at? Maybe you don't lose much over time, but if you don't start very high, who cares?
                        Last edited by Wallysb01; 02-22-2012, 12:03 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Wallysb01 View Post
                          Ion Torrent doesn't use fluorescence and they have problems maintaining quality as reads get longer. And if we're talking about 10Kb+, it doesn't take much degradation rate per base to be totally useless. Then of course comes the question of, what does the quality start at? Maybe you don't lose much over time, but if you don't start very high, who cares?
                          Okay, but the Ion Torrent is a second generation instrument. That means ensembles of nascent strands reporting as each base (or series of homopolymeric bases) is incorporated. That is inherently limited by your ability to keep all the nascent strands in sync. As they begin to differ in the base they report, signal descends into noise. How the addition of a base is reported -- via pH change or fluorescence -- does not alter that limitation.

                          4th gen means you don't rely on synthesis of a nascent strand and you query only one strand at a time. Hence the syncing issue disappears. To be replaced with other issues, no doubt. But, to the extent you can keep that strand moving through the pore, and the pore characteristics do not change randomly over time, the read quality would not be expected to diminish as read length increases.

                          In principle anyway. In actual practice? Well, that is what read data would help you determine. These are extraordinary claims here. Yet not even one data set has been publicly released? Why not? If it is because there is little to gain from ONT doing so, then part of the blame is on us.

                          Where is the skepticism? Sure we see a little in this forum. But in the media at large I see only Rothberg's comments -- and his comments are being largely discounted because of his role in a competing instrument system.

                          --
                          Phillip

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Just a quick question on generations. We're all aware of the 2nd gen stuff we've got in our labs, but people are calling ONT 4th or 5th gen. What was 3rd gen? Pacbio?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by pmiguel View Post

                              I think two extreme possibilities include:

                              (1) Everything is exactly the way it is portrayed in the press releases. No data release because they know they will have real instruments available for sale in 6 months and they will sell every single one they make.

                              (2) There has been some sort of disconnect between what is being marketed and what is actually possible. No data is being released, because there is nothing to release.

                              Seems like our initial reaction was to presume possibility 1. Rothberg presumes something like 2. I don't see personally see any information that makes it possible to distinguish between the two possibilities. You can claim "sour grapes" all you want about Rothberg's comments. But at this point his claims are backed by the same amount of data that has been publicly released as Oxford Nanopore's claims: zero.

                              --
                              Phillip
                              Of course, the funny part about Rothberg making these comments is it wasn't too many AGBTs ago that the exact same list of complaints was being leveled at him after his presentation similarly electrified the sequencing community (or should I say ionized?)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by krobison View Post
                                Of course, the funny part about Rothberg making these comments is it wasn't too many AGBTs ago that the exact same list of complaints was being leveled at him after his presentation similarly electrified the sequencing community (or should I say ionized?)
                                Rothberg's comments are perhaps a bit extreme, and always comes with the 'he's a competitor' tag, but after the initial euphoria, lot of people at AGBT associated with both genome sequencing technology and genomics had some reservations. The general mood was 'this is a great technology, but show me the real data'.

                                Comment

                                Latest Articles

                                Collapse

                                • seqadmin
                                  Strategies for Sequencing Challenging Samples
                                  by seqadmin


                                  Despite advancements in sequencing platforms and related sample preparation technologies, certain sample types continue to present significant challenges that can compromise sequencing results. Pedro Echave, Senior Manager of the Global Business Segment at Revvity, explained that the success of a sequencing experiment ultimately depends on the amount and integrity of the nucleic acid template (RNA or DNA) obtained from a sample. “The better the quality of the nucleic acid isolated...
                                  03-22-2024, 06:39 AM
                                • seqadmin
                                  Techniques and Challenges in Conservation Genomics
                                  by seqadmin



                                  The field of conservation genomics centers on applying genomics technologies in support of conservation efforts and the preservation of biodiversity. This article features interviews with two researchers who showcase their innovative work and highlight the current state and future of conservation genomics.

                                  Avian Conservation
                                  Matthew DeSaix, a recent doctoral graduate from Kristen Ruegg’s lab at The University of Colorado, shared that most of his research...
                                  03-08-2024, 10:41 AM

                                ad_right_rmr

                                Collapse

                                News

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:37 PM
                                0 responses
                                7 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
                                0 responses
                                7 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Started by seqadmin, 03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
                                0 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Started by seqadmin, 03-21-2024, 07:32 AM
                                0 responses
                                66 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Working...
                                X