View Single Post
Old 02-18-2012, 10:24 AM   #14
nxgsqq
Junior Member
 
Location: usa

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3
Default

I too agree the error is acceptable, IF, it is indeed the typical error they see and not a 'best case' presented for effect and advertisement. I am suspicious of resolving 64 levels (3 base read) electronically considering how small the differences will be. I don't completely buy the algorithmic deconvolution either, especially if they are still using a polymerase. If it is a non-stochasitic transport, a Viterbi/HMM algorithm might give 94% accuracy.

The bigger unknown is the true, customer usability of their pores. I would assume they are Poisson loading the pores before they ship to users. How many pores are still active after an hour of use? I know the bilayers can be made stable and inert, I can accept the error profile can be made length independent (especially if they tether the motor to the pore, else Brownian motion of long DNA can act to pull the complex off, even against the electric field), but how many pores are sequening at a given time and how does that number drop off over time?

There is plenty of smoke and mirrors happening, but to give credit where it is due, kudos to them for enabling, even a semblance of, a product around nanopores, and for a dignified and sombre presence.

Last edited by nxgsqq; 02-18-2012 at 12:15 PM.
nxgsqq is offline   Reply With Quote