Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #16
    Yes, nothing but a claim. But a member of this forum suggested that he had indeed seen such improvements. Posted yesterday in this thread at 2:40 PM but post got lost. Maybe linked to recent instability if this site?

    MrGuy has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Is the Proton a good reason to buy Life Technologies stock? - in the Ion Torrent forum of SEQanswers.

    This thread is located at:
    Integrated electronic detection of protons released upon base incorporation. (Life Technologies)


    Here is the message that has just been posted:
    ***************
    From the data I've produced in the past month or two with the latest chemistries, I have no issues with the sequencing chemistry or specifically the homopolymer issue you are refering to.
    ***************

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TonyBrooks View Post
      At the moment we still use Illumina over PGM where possible. Around 50% of our costs are labour costs. If you compare the hands on time it takes to do a PGM run (ePCR, OneTouch enrichment, initialise instrument, load chip ~1 day) to set up our MiSeq ~15 minutes then it's a no brainer.
      Having prepared samples for Ion Torrent and Miseq I don't think this is a fully fair comparison. Washing and initializing the machines takes the same amount of time. Running ePCR and enrichment with the Ion Torrent is time consuming, but very easy. There's an hour of actual work involved going from prepared libraries to putting the chip in and running the Ion Torrent. Then there are five hours of waiting. You can work on other things during that time.

      Paired end is another story. MiSeq is much easier to do paired end on. Considering that our Ion Torrent sales rep told me, in person, that they were disappointed by the quality of the second reads, I'm tempted not to even consider paired-end.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by steinmann View Post
        Yes, nothing but a claim. But a member of this forum suggested that he had indeed seen such improvements. Posted yesterday in this thread at 2:40 PM but post got lost. Maybe linked to recent instability if this site?
        I deleted it since it was nothing but a claim. I'd rather support it with data for you, but didn't feel like making a big deal out of it. Regardless, works fine for what I do, no issues with the latest chemistries or protocols with regards to homopolymers.

        Comment


        • #19
          In terms of error rates for PGM and possibly Proton

          Hi All,

          Very interesting thread. I came across this youtube video that shows how Ion Torrent has improved with respect to accuracy.

          Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

          Comment


          • #20
            More on accuracy check out time point 18:29

            Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi, all.
              I think all available genomic sequencing methods are running neck to neck. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Neither LIFE nor ILLUMINA has overwhelming advantages.
              In detail, PGM has lower running cost (labour cost not included), but it also has longer preparation time, as mentioned by someone above. And its biggest shortage is monopolymer recalling, which happens to be the advantage of illumina.

              Comment


              • #22
                PGM can handle low diversity runs, something the MiSeq struggles with. Amplicon runs or samples for RNA-editing would be good to reason to have a PGM around.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Going back to your original question, the answer is NO. First off, you are better paying your house or buying one than any other stock. Second, Life is a huge company, sequencing is only a certain part of it. Third, Life's CEO is one of the worst person to execute plan and one of the best to oversell something.

                  Let's look at this race again, the race for market share (because there is a finite number of room for new sequencers, believe me). Where does this race take you... The manufacturing of instruments that do more, faster at a lower cost than the market can accept. A zero dollar machine at zero dollar cost that runs a genome in 0 seconds, sadly, will still not fit in a proper hospital pathology workflow (and please stop telling me Anderson or Mayo does it, that's not the global market).

                  Now take a look at the R&D spending for these new machines, take a look at the acquisition cost of Ion Torrent, the huge debt of solid. Now look at what their plan is: Make more machines at a lower cost using lower costs reagents for bigger results... That's a direct line to lower revenues... not your best business model.

                  Basically NGS at Life is in the red and growing slowly. The reality is that the cash cow is in good old forensic using capillary... We will never know because they do not want to publish NGS results only...

                  Life is barely keeping up in the single digit growth... that's pretty sad considering the massive cut backs and spending freeze they always have out there.

                  Long gone are the days of the biotech bubble my friend... this baby is saturated. I bought CRA at 12 and sold at 109$... what a joke that was...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by epistatic View Post
                    PGM can handle low diversity runs, something the MiSeq struggles with. Amplicon runs or samples for RNA-editing would be good to reason to have a PGM around.
                    Sure, but that doesn't move a stock...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by greekkey View Post
                      Hi, all.
                      I think all available genomic sequencing methods are running neck to neck. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Neither LIFE nor ILLUMINA has overwhelming advantages.
                      In detail, PGM has lower running cost (labour cost not included), but it also has longer preparation time, as mentioned by someone above. And its biggest shortage is monopolymer recalling, which happens to be the advantage of illumina.
                      Again, all this is good but has absolutely no influence on how an institutional investor will buy a block or not...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Elcannibal View Post
                        Second, Life is a huge company, sequencing is only a certain part of it.
                        Yes! And a fairly small part as of now. But the sequencing market is large enough to become a major part of it.

                        Third, Life's CEO is one of the worst person to execute plan and one of the best to oversell something.
                        Why would you think so?

                        Let's look at this race again, the race for market share (because there is a finite number of room for new sequencers, believe me). Where does this race take you... The manufacturing of instruments that do more, faster at a lower cost than the market can accept. A zero dollar machine at zero dollar cost that runs a genome in 0 seconds, sadly, will still not fit in a proper hospital pathology workflow (and please stop telling me Anderson or Mayo does it, that's not the global market).

                        Now take a look at the R&D spending for these new machines, take a look at the acquisition cost of Ion Torrent, the huge debt of solid. Now look at what their plan is: Make more machines at a lower cost using lower costs reagents for bigger results... That's a direct line to lower revenues... not your best business model.
                        That whole part makes little sense to me. You talk like building cheaper and better devices than your competitor would be a recipe for economic failure.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          That whole part makes little sense to me. You talk like building cheaper and better devices than your competitor would be a recipe for economic failure.

                          This isn't a consumer market like cell phones and thingmagadjig... This is for DNA sequencing, sorry to brake the news but there is simply not enough sequencer demands to think that if you make them cheap enough, more people will buy them or use them... nope, not happening. Our head isn't strapped around that kind of deluge or workflow... not happening. Simple business model. Life is fighting a war, ILMN is simply going about doing what it does... Only one has spent almost one billion in the war of acquisition... to see it dilutes. The income is anemic and will never take a massive flight. Read the financial reports. Forget about the lab...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Not going to happen? Its already happening! Plenty of smaller institutes in academia and medical diagnostic companies are now buying sequencers because of the lower initial investment and cost per run. And just because prices are going down does not mean that the big institutes will be spending less money on sequencing. They just do more of the same thing.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Elcannibal View Post
                              Let's look at this race again, the race for market share (because there is a finite number of room for new sequencers, believe me). Where does this race take you... The manufacturing of instruments that do more, faster at a lower cost than the market can accept. A zero dollar machine at zero dollar cost that runs a genome in 0 seconds, sadly, will still not fit in a proper hospital pathology workflow (and please stop telling me Anderson or Mayo does it, that's not the global market).
                              All markets are finite. The question is how big are they.

                              Leaving aside LIFE or specific technologies, sequencing is making serious inroads into healthcare. There are other approaches to integrating sequencing than just dropping it into existing pathology labs; companies such as Foundation Medicine are setting up to provide sample-to-answer solutions outside existing labs. Other groups are developing boxes which take patient DNA in at one end and generate analytical reports at the other; this is not far from standard medical analysis machines' workflow. And, in any case, there are hundreds if not thousands of large, high quality hospitals in the world that can take on these technologies, and will serve as high-volume regional centers which with whom the smaller providers feel compelled to compete. CAT & MRI used to be only at the big-name hospitals; now they are ubiquitous.

                              Sequencing is likely to become standard-of-care in oncology, as the value proposition is clear (better odds of picking the right expensive therapeutic option saving the health system costs and enabling better outcomes). Sequencing is likely to become standard-of-care for infants in the NICU without clear diagnoses, again leading to better health outcomes at lower cost. Infection surveillance is likely to be yet another, driven both by bioterrorism worries as well as the reality of hospital-based infections.

                              It's also foolish to see medicine as the only major market for sequencing. As the costs drop and the boxes get simpler, sequencing will displace other technologies (e.g. qPCR) in many markets, and there will simply be huge new markets that are currently underserved -- I would suggest agribusiness (plant & animal breeding) as one, but it is likely that significant new markets for cheap sequencing will emerge from unpredictable places, as documented repeatedly be Clayton Christensen.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                If you paid 1 billion for a technology that will reduce your revenu stream by a potential 100x, you have to ask yourself if the market will pick up 1000x of that loss...

                                The fact is, its just not moving that fast, hence you can buy share of a company but before that 'revolution' happens, there are tons of other players who can show up... Remember, we used to make it big with an 'automated' 377, and we all pitched into the code of life and Collins told us about the little white room with a personal pill design software... Sorry Keith but I don't really have to make a case here, you do...

                                Fact is, today, we still do forensic, 99% of the time on a cap... why not move in NGS ? Forensic brings in more profit... how can that be...

                                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
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
                                0 responses
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Started by seqadmin, 03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
                                0 responses
                                51 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Started by seqadmin, 03-21-2024, 07:32 AM
                                0 responses
                                67 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Working...
                                X