SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Helicos

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Introducing Helicos tSMS™ Sequencing Services from Helicos Helicos BioSciences Vendor Forum 1 05-31-2012 05:49 AM
Helicos Nscore jmjensen Bioinformatics 0 09-22-2011 04:09 AM
Solexa/helicos [email protected] General 13 09-30-2010 08:29 AM
Helicos AnamikaDarwin Bioinformatics 5 06-13-2009 03:01 PM
Public Helicos Data zee Bioinformatics 2 08-11-2008 08:14 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-25-2010, 10:43 AM   #1
genseq
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 78
Unhappy Сollapse of Helicos

http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/...0-genome-race/
http://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/...-restructuring
genseq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 11:02 AM   #2
Calico
Member
 
Location: Houston

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13
Default

It's a little bit sad to see, and strange since they are one NGS company that actually has a machine on the market. What do you think is the reason for their demise? One thing I have noticed is the lack of marketing on their part, at least if I compare with e.g. PacBio.
Calico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 11:11 AM   #3
genseq
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 78
Default

The main reason for their demise is monomolecular technology.
Next collapse - PacBio.

Last edited by genseq; 05-25-2010 at 09:08 PM.
genseq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 05:46 AM   #4
krobison
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston area

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 747
Default

A more thoughtful consideration of Helicos might be along these lines

On the business side, they went public too soon. Going public has pluses, but huge minuses too. Lots of pressure to get the product out the door.

Failure of management to enlist a partner with deep pockets -- never easy, but certainly helps keep the engine running.

Instruments were clearly delivered too early to some customers -- having a service provider return your instrument isn't a great start.

The worst problem, and abetted by the issues above, is that they didn't quickly demonstrate enough compelling applications. The Quake genome paper is to me the perfect exemplar of this (yes, it wasn't officially a Helicos paper -- but since he is a founder it inevitably gets assigned to them). It didn't highlight any of the real advantages of the system -- they cooked up cost & labor estimates that nobody took seriously to try to claim some. It did (especially with the recent Lancet follow-up) highlight the limitations of Helicos in terms of accuracy & coverage.

In contrast, suppose they had taken a sample which really showed off their simple sample prep & ability to work with difficult samples. If they had sequenced a person's genome from a small sample or better yet a cancer genome from formalin-fixed clinical tissue, then they'd be doing something ahead of "the big 3" and perhaps in an area where they struggle.

Similarly, while their website has protocols for a number of interesting applications which show the advantages of the system, too few of these have publications. Mass copy number profiling from clinical samples? Why isn't there a publication for that?

Well, because they couldn't do everything at once. This is the challenge of a small company with a hard to characterize technology in a crowded field -- you need to distinguish yourself from the pack AND do so with something that will catch on. Helicos focused on some other apps (RNA-Seq) that didn't quite catch the imagination of the crowd.

Finally, Illumina & ABI & 454 certainly make a lot of money off kits & reagents. Helicos' simplicity of sample prep has the downside of denying them a strong revenue stream in that area.

Helicos isn't dead yet & even if the company dies somebody may pick up the technology.

Finally, writing off PacBio is rather premature. They have a lot of funding & their instrument clearly has some very interesting distiguishing features. Even if it doesn't become a workhorse, it can provide key data that other systems can't (long-range genomics information) and in doing so make obsolete a whole host of physical mapping methods. With the great current interest in structural variation and proposals to map tens of thousands of vertebrate genomes, if PacBio can simply generate noisy reads across 20+Kb fragments, it will have a niche which will support a few dozen machines. There are plenty of companies out there which get by with a few dozen $1M machines in the field -- though that wouldn't support the stratospheric hopes of PacBio investors.
krobison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 08:51 AM   #5
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 401
Default

Thank god I never took a job there. After talking with them it was pretty obvious they wouldn't make it. I doubt PacBio will do much better but they can at least learn from Helicos's mistakes.
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 11:44 PM   #6
james hadfield
Moderator
Cambridge, UK
Community Forum
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 215
Default

Krobison makes a really interesting point about revenue streams. Most companies would say they do not make money on instrumentation, it is consumables that drive business. Helicos would make money from sequencing kits, large numbers of users of Illumina are home-brewing kits to save money as well.

However in the case of Helicos, had they been able to show robust RNA-seq from native mRNA sequenced with a reverse-transcriptase, at similar throughput to Illumina I know a lot of people who would have loved to use the system.
james hadfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 12:33 PM   #7
Michael.James.Clark
Senior Member
 
Location: Palo Alto

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 213
Default

I think it's wrong to count out PacBio, especially as a technology. The phasing info alone that can potentially be gained using a PacBio is worth quite a bit.

There is also the potential for direct observation of modified nucleotides using the kinetics data, something that I'm interested to see pan out.

I would not be surprised to see many larger genome centers pick up a PacBio device for the sole purpose of providing scaffolding data to work hand-in-hand with their short read data.
__________________
Mendelian Disorder: A blogshare of random useful information for general public consumption. [Blog]
Breakway: A Program to Identify Structural Variations in Genomic Data [Website] [Forum Post]
Projects: U87MG whole genome sequence [Website] [Paper]
Michael.James.Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 08:09 PM   #8
frozenlyse
Senior Member
 
Location: Australia

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 128
Default

Indeed PacBio have demonstrated on a very small scale their platforms ability to distinguish modified nucleotides without any pretreatment, which makes it a unique technology... But who knows whether it can scale up to useful throughput?
frozenlyse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 08:27 PM   #9
genseq
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 78
Default

PacBio is outsider in "price race" of "genome race":
Attached Images
File Type: jpg PacBio.JPG (40.9 KB, 414 views)
genseq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 05:02 AM   #10
krobison
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston area

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by genseq View Post
PacBio is outsider in "price race" of "genome race":
Raw cost of the box is an important consideration, but hardly the be-all, end-all. PacBio. Other costs are the reagents & labor. If you wanted to show something interesting, plot an estimate of the fully loaded cost for some given project over a set lifespan -- say #genomes sequenced over 2 years (assuming 80% uptime) vs. reagent+library prep+instrument cost. That might be informative.
krobison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 05:51 AM   #11
genseq
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 78
Default

This information will appear in 2 ... 3 years.
genseq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2011, 06:43 AM   #12
scrosby
Director, GTAC, Washington U.
 
Location: St. Louis

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 20
Default

genseq, I like the horse-race! You should update it!
scrosby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2011, 02:15 PM   #13
rskr
Senior Member
 
Location: Santa Fe, NM

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 250
Default

Helicos's physics based approach was a little unrealistic. There is only so much you can do with a giant lens, and last I checked they weren't turning out reads any longer than current short read technology, but with an instrument that was a couple of magnitudes more expensive.

Pacbio with the modified polymerases is much more interesting, and has implications for biotechnology that are fascinating, for example the machine has uses beyond sequencing ACTG, it appears that they will possibly be able to detect any number of DNA modifications methylation just being the first application.
rskr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2011, 10:16 PM   #14
genseq
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 78
Smile Update release

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrosby View Post
genseq, I like the horse-race! You should update it!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Price Race.JPG (62.2 KB, 192 views)
genseq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 07:31 PM   #15
krobison
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston area

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rskr View Post
Helicos's physics based approach was a little unrealistic. There is only so much you can do with a giant lens, and last I checked they weren't turning out reads any longer than current short read technology, but with an instrument that was a couple of magnitudes more expensive.
Helicos' edge was never in read length. The key advantages were very simple (and cheap) sample prep free from any biases of PCR.
krobison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 07:32 AM   #16
Apollo704
Junior Member
 
Location: Boston

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7
Default

Helicos also had a 50 lane set up, and finding enough samples to fill that much capacity is daunting. That and there's only so much you can do with ~20 base reads (again, the application problem).

I agree with MJC that it's way to early to rule out PacBio.
Apollo704 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 04:52 AM   #17
Elcannibal
Member
 
Location: Alaska

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 49
Default

Officially bankrupt and dead. RIP.
Elcannibal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 09:08 AM   #18
krobison
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston area

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elcannibal View Post
Officially bankrupt and dead. RIP.
Note that it is a Chapter 11 bankruptcy & they claim to be debtors-in-possession, so a total liquidation is not (yet) in the works.
krobison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 12:16 AM   #19
flxlex
Moderator
 
Location: Oslo, Norway

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 390
Default

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-h...r-11/81247649/
flxlex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 03:47 PM   #20
ftr712
Junior Member
 
Location: Orlando, FL

Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3
Default

FYI, Helicos BioSciences' assets and rights were purchased by SeqLL, LLC not too long ago. I know that SeqLL is currently offering RNA and DNA sequencing services. Here's their website with the rest of the details www.seqll.com
ftr712 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.