Hi, I have seen a lot of the theoretical discussion around the NovaSeq and the resulting data. I was just wondering if there were any users that were actually running a NovaSeq that could comment on how it was performing in the lab in terms of loading, errors, general issues etc?
Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
It will be good instrument when Illumina comes up with real fix(es) for index hopping issue. Currently its use is limited to sequencing large whole genomes where available UDI combinations can be utilized and not many are willing to use it knowing that their discoveries or positive expected results could be due index hopping.
Comment
-
Honestly this index hopping issue is way overblown. For most sequencing applications it's a non-issue. From our experience a clean library (i.e. no visible primers or dimers in BA trace), the hopping rate is less than 1%. What's causing problems are those who got used to the fact that the MiSeqs and HiSeq 2000s were able to sequencing bad libraries without issues and then running into problems with pattern flow cells. Once you understand the nuances of the new instrument it's a great platform and much easier to use compared to the older instruments.
Comment
-
We need to move index closer (start) of the sequencing read... - Like 454-MID.
Originally posted by nucacidhunter View PostIt will be good instrument when Illumina comes up with real fix(es) for index hopping issue. Currently its use is limited to sequencing large whole genomes where available UDI combinations can be utilized and not many are willing to use it knowing that their discoveries or positive expected results could be due index hopping.
Than recombination events over flanking sequencing primers would not change much - the index would remain with its read.
Also, it would be great if Illumina could make a 4-channell version of the NovaSeq system/kits, since a lot of researchers would sacrifice half of the throughput for 3-10 times lower error rate. - Esp. if they want to assemble de novo umapped reads.
And one would be easilly able to run a 2 chanell sequencing kits on that system for NextSeq-style data.
I hope that the quality of the sequencing reagents keeps up with the time (Unlike the NextSeq V2 story): http://seqanswers.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=89 and does not fall under BGISeq500 or similar system.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Markiyan View PostSince index hopping seems to be caused by recombinase, recombining over a homologus sequencing/index primer binding sequence, what about using 454-MID style indexing - devote first 6-8 basepairs of the sequencing read to the index?
Than recombination events over flanking sequencing primers would not change much - the index would remain with its read.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Brian Bushnell View PostI don't know anything about the lab issues, but the sequence quality is good. Coverage exhibits slightly more bias than HiSeq for the same libraries. Using unique dual barcodes and performing deduplication are both essential, because of the high crosstalk and duplicate rates.
"HiSeq" doesn't denote a single kind of Illumina instrument. HiSeq 2000/2500 are quite different from HiSeq 3000/4000/X. Which type do you mean?
--
Phillip
Comment
-
Originally posted by nucacidhunter View PostIt will be good instrument when Illumina comes up with real fix(es) for index hopping issue. Currently its use is limited to sequencing large whole genomes where available UDI combinations can be utilized and not many are willing to use it knowing that their discoveries or positive expected results could be due index hopping.
Also, NuGen apparently has released a 96 UDI with some of their Illumina library construction kits.
--
Phillip
Comment
-
Originally posted by GenoMax View PostI think @Brian is referring to 4- vs 2-color chemistry difference in that sentence.
Brian actually praises the accuracy of the NovaSeq--which is what is claimed later is an issue.
I don't think that in actuality the two-color nature of the NovaSeq makes it less accurate than the HiSeq 3000/4000/X. I think it performs similarly or better. At least all Illumina's testing seems to show that.
--
Phillip
Comment
-
Originally posted by pmiguel View PostBrian,
"HiSeq" doesn't denote a single kind of Illumina instrument. HiSeq 2000/2500 are quite different from HiSeq 3000/4000/X. Which type do you mean?
--
PhillipThose are 2000/2500/1T. In this specific case I was comparing it to a 2500 run.
To clarify, from isolate random fragment data downsampled to the same number of reads in each case, after mapping, I observed slightly more genomic bases with very low (0x, 1x, etc.) coverage on the NovaSeq, and its primary genomic peak was shifted to slightly higher counts. We have not done a robust analysis of the effects on assembly, though I can't imagine coverage bias would give a better assembly. I will try to make some time to quantify this effect; it's of great interest to JGI as well. But we've only done 3 runs and I've only looked at 2 of them. Statistically it's not significant if you consider runs as the number of samples, but it is quite important if you consider reads as the number of samples. I'm not yet sure which is the case here.Last edited by Brian Bushnell; 10-09-2017, 06:20 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pmiguel View PostActually you can purchase full (96 or 384) UDI adapter sets from IDT. Although last I checked they were still a custom synthesis order. Which means you get more adapter than you are likely to use at a pretty high price. (Approaching $10K for the 96 UDI adapter set.)
Also, NuGen apparently has released a 96 UDI with some of their Illumina library construction kits.
--
Phillip
Comment
-
It's interesting to me that Illumina introduced NovaSeq without accompanying adapter kits to enable a high degree of multiplexing. Their current 24-unique-index kit seems targeted at human exome-capture on NovaSeq. From Illumina's perspective, higher degrees of multiplexing are probably seen as hurting profitability.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Brian Bushnell View PostIt's interesting to me that Illumina introduced NovaSeq without accompanying adapter kits to enable a high degree of multiplexing. Their current 24-unique-index kit seems targeted at human exome-capture on NovaSeq.
Comment
-
Inline indexes & patterned flowcells.
Originally posted by nucacidhunter View PostThe issue with inline barcode/index in Illumina systems is base diversity. In some library preps such as GBS which is done in batches of multiple samples it is easy but for a single library they have to have at least four colour balanced barcodes. Also if the inline barcodes were added to adapters then both R1 and R2 will read the barcode wasting a bit of sequencing.
This is really important for RNAseq & CHIPseq applications, where we want to keep the cross-talk bellow 10^-6...
Classical dual unique indexing would get us into 10^-4 - 10^-5 range.
BTW: Actually the spatial signal separation from the patterned flowcell clusters should resemble more the 454 signal, and the clusters should be much more easier to call, even if low diversity at the first few bases.
Comment
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by seqadmin
The field of epigenetics has traditionally concentrated more on DNA and how changes like methylation and phosphorylation of histones impact gene expression and regulation. However, our increased understanding of RNA modifications and their importance in cellular processes has led to a rise in epitranscriptomics research. “Epitranscriptomics brings together the concepts of epigenetics and gene expression,” explained Adrien Leger, PhD, Principal Research Scientist...-
Channel: Articles
04-22-2024, 07:01 AM -
-
by seqadmin
Proteins are often described as the workhorses of the cell, and identifying their sequences is key to understanding their role in biological processes and disease. Currently, the most common technique used to determine protein sequences is mass spectrometry. While still a valuable tool, mass spectrometry faces several limitations and requires a highly experienced scientist familiar with the equipment to operate it. Additionally, other proteomic methods, like affinity assays, are constrained...-
Channel: Articles
04-04-2024, 04:25 PM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 11:49 AM
|
0 responses
15 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
Yesterday, 11:49 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 04-24-2024, 08:47 AM
|
0 responses
16 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
04-24-2024, 08:47 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 04-11-2024, 12:08 PM
|
0 responses
61 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
04-11-2024, 12:08 PM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 10:19 PM
|
0 responses
60 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
04-10-2024, 10:19 PM
|
Comment