SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > The Pipeline



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"allele balance ratio" and "quality by depth" in VCF files efoss Bioinformatics 2 10-25-2011 12:13 PM
Relatively large proportion of "LOWDATA", "FAIL" of FPKM_status running cufflink ruben6um Bioinformatics 3 10-12-2011 01:39 AM
The position file formats ".clocs" and "_pos.txt"? Ist there any difference? elgor Illumina/Solexa 0 06-27-2011 08:55 AM
"Systems biology and administration" & "Genome generation: no engineering allowed" seb567 Bioinformatics 0 05-25-2010 01:19 PM
SEQanswers second "publication": "How to map billions of short reads onto genomes" ECO Literature Watch 0 06-30-2009 12:49 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2012, 07:42 PM   #81
Elcannibal
Member
 
Location: Alaska

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 49
Default

Pure hype is not science. Sequencing, I might argue with you, be it on a USB stick or through a 800K behemoth is nowhere near science. All the best to ONT, it's just not a business model that holds.
Elcannibal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 03:37 AM   #82
cibertech
Member
 
Location: San Diego

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 25
Default

Hello Elcannibal.

I do believe that sequencing is a part science, and it’s already helping people to perform deep studies on cancer, for example. I also believe it will have a bigger impact in the future. Nevertheless, as I stated before, it’s just a part of science. It’s not going to do everything like a magic trick, the same way that a computer, by itself, doesn’t do much. The person behind it has to use it for a good purpose, and the computer is just part of the process of, lets say, creating a mechanical part, for example. Of course, we live in a capitalist world, and everything must be done to be profitable, so companies cannot stick on just doing what is best for science. They must please the share holders as well. So, a compromise between the two must always be achieved. But saying that sequencing is not part of science is the same thing as saying that a computer is not part of mechanical engineering, just because the computer cannot, by itself, create the mechanical part (although that might not be true anymore, with 3D printers...).

Best regards

Ezequiel
cibertech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 05:46 AM   #83
ymc
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cibertech View Post
Hello Elcannibal.

I do believe that sequencing is a part science, and itís already helping people to perform deep studies on cancer, for example. I also believe it will have a bigger impact in the future. Nevertheless, as I stated before, itís just a part of science. Itís not going to do everything like a magic trick, the same way that a computer, by itself, doesnít do much. The person behind it has to use it for a good purpose, and the computer is just part of the process of, lets say, creating a mechanical part, for example. Of course, we live in a capitalist world, and everything must be done to be profitable, so companies cannot stick on just doing what is best for science. They must please the share holders as well. So, a compromise between the two must always be achieved. But saying that sequencing is not part of science is the same thing as saying that a computer is not part of mechanical engineering, just because the computer cannot, by itself, create the mechanical part (although that might not be true anymore, with 3D printers...).

Best regards

Ezequiel
Well said. I think Elcannibal probably thinks computer-related or sequencing-related stuff is engineering not science.

Science is by definition something theoretical and not useful. But you need science to drive engineering. Science also needs engineering to drive it nowadays as some of its problems are intractable without the help of machines.
ymc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 07:33 AM   #84
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,237
Default

Also, there is some bitterness as a subtext. Some complaint.

Maybe a (fairly high-functioning) troll, just trying to punch the right buttons?

What is the complaint? Companies are not doing real science, all they care about is profits? But also, a criticism about how their business model is defective or non-existent. The two halves of the complaint would not seem compatible. Either you paint a company as a money-grubbing entity with no true interest in the product they are selling or it is some pie-in-the-sky start-up incapable of making a dollar for its investors.

If you are invoking both at the same time -- yeah, that would make it a troll.

I guess I am not a fan of the bitter-angsty troll. But that doesn't mean they have no purpose on a forum like this one.

The thing is, as I ranted earlier, ONT really played "us" like a fiddle during AGBT. Gave us zero raw data, but got us to add to their hype-stream. I could say "bad on them" for that. But, they have their agenda. Really I think it is was "bad on us" for not calling them on it right at AGBT. Yeah, I wasn't there. I can't say I would have reacted any differently. But, since it worked, that is an encouragement to other groups who might want to do the same thing.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 05:01 PM   #85
Elcannibal
Member
 
Location: Alaska

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 49
Default

I'm not bitter, I condone hype. There has been too much of it lately, scientists have been jumping on ridiculous marketing, aligning themselves with companies and technologies, rather than disease. The holy grail is not coming, it's just that simple.
Elcannibal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 06:21 AM   #86
cibertech
Member
 
Location: San Diego

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 25
Default

Hello Elcannibal.

I totally agree with you on this point. (Remember when the first "human genome in 15 minutes" was first promised and how many times? I cannot even remember any more...)
However, this fact alone does not make sequencing invaluable and certainly does not mean sequencing is not part of science. As I stated before, we live in a capitalist world, and this is just a reflection of it.

Ezequiel
cibertech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 01:49 PM   #87
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 383
Default

Hey everybody, the first bit of ON news in a long while:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genome Web's In Sequence
[The New York Genome Center] also intends to place other new technologies at the pilot lab. "We are talking to Oxford Nanopore, for example, about becoming an early-access center for their technology," Kelley said.
source

I guess second hand news is better than nothing, if anything it lets us know that ON is not completely dead....
GW_OK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 07:29 PM   #88
ymc
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW_OK View Post
Hey everybody, the first bit of ON news in a long while:


source

I guess second hand news is better than nothing, if anything it lets us know that ON is not completely dead....
NYGC is calling ONT bluff?
ymc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 04:45 AM   #89
zaratieg
Member
 
Location: NYC

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW_OK View Post
Hey everybody, the first bit of ON news in a long while:


source

I guess second hand news is better than nothing, if anything it lets us know that ON is not completely dead....
I guess it means they still exist. But in terms of ETA, I read this as "we are so far from release date that we are not even actively looking for beta testers, and NYGC, which is only slightly less pie-in-the-sky than us, is the one that is asking to try our toys"
zaratieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 06:22 AM   #90
bbeitzel
Member
 
Location: Ft. Detrick, MD

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 50
Default

I saw a while back that ONT is hiring FASs (http://www.nanoporetech.com/careers/job-centre/view/144). I took that as a sign that they were getting close to commercial launch, but maybe I am just naive / overly optimistic.
bbeitzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 08:43 AM   #91
scbaker
Shawn Baker
 
Location: San Diego

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 84
Default

I think it's pretty clear that ONT is moving towards commercialization, but it's a question of 'when'. My guess is that their technology won't be broadly available until mid 2013 (but that's just a guess).
scbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 09:08 AM   #92
cibertech
Member
 
Location: San Diego

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 25
Default

That's interesting, Shawn.
How have you estimated that date? Based on something specific?

Ezequiel
cibertech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 11:25 AM   #93
scbaker
Shawn Baker
 
Location: San Diego

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cibertech View Post
That's interesting, Shawn.
How have you estimated that date? Based on something specific?

Ezequiel
No, no - certainly nothing specific. It's just that we're in the middle of August and I still haven't really heard any rumors of who the early access customers are (although there are a few obvious guesses). Full commercialization will simply take a while and I haven't seen enough signs of ramping up (hiring activity, sightings in the field, etc) to think it will happen by the end of the year. I would be super happy to be wrong, with GridIONs and MinIONs for everyone this Christmas (I just wouldn't bet on it).

Shawn
scbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2012, 07:32 AM   #94
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twitter
Announcing Oxford Nanopore as the poster prize sponsor for #BTG2012! @nanopore
I wonder if the prize is a MinION?
GW_OK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 02:02 AM   #95
BBoy
Member
 
Location: Pacific Northwest

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW_OK View Post
I wonder if the prize is a MinION?
They really really really ought to re brand the damn thing. Minion? Really? But I agree that the silence since AGBT has been interesting, as has been the lack of significant hiring activity. Perhaps their instrument is so reliable they need no field service? Or maybe their beta sites are all near headquarter? Both are unlikely.
BBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 05:41 AM   #96
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,237
Default

Well the Minion is disposable, so service would not be an issue. The "instrument" per se would be just whatever computer you plugged it into for the run. At least that is what I understand.

I agree the "ION" suffix is just going to be detrimental to any attempt to distinguish themselves from the other sequencers already inhabiting that name space.

That said, ONT seems to have captured a much larger percentage of the "general public" mind-share than Ion Torrent. Reminds me of the situation circa 3 years ago when it was more likely that a member of the public would have heard of "Pacific Biosciences" than "Illumina". Despite the fact the former was pure vaporware at the point whereas Illumina actually had a sequencer to sell. (Or had Solexa been purchased by Illumina at that point?)

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 11:51 PM   #97
Jeremy
Senior Member
 
Location: Pathum Thani, Thailand

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBoy View Post
They really really really ought to re brand the damn thing. Minion? Really? But I agree that the silence since AGBT has been interesting, as has been the lack of significant hiring activity. Perhaps their instrument is so reliable they need no field service? Or maybe their beta sites are all near headquarter? Both are unlikely.
I have been watching their website and for the last few months they have had a lot of job vacancies listed. Some of the more promising are 'field application scientists', 'electronics production engineer' and 'production/manufacturing engineer'. If they need someone to oversee production/manufacturing then surely they are getting close to release(?).

That aside though, the total lack of any news suggests things aren't on track.
Jeremy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2012, 12:59 PM   #98
Elcannibal
Member
 
Location: Alaska

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 49
Default

It's a fairly common HR concept to post as many job position as possible. I know company who are constantly sending out employees for a walk of shame with the brown box, the 15 minute clean up and the security guard while posting request on websites for the exact same job... same thing for hiring freezes, a very common practice amongst NGS companies but they would never want you to know.
Elcannibal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 03:37 PM   #99
aeonsim
Member
 
Location: Belgium

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 45
Default

I see they've got a booth at ASHG, hopefully some of you who are attending will give them some stick about the commercial release of minion and the lack of released data!
aeonsim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 07:17 AM   #100
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twitter
Oxford Nanopore ‏@nanopore

Visit us at ASHG 2012, where we’ll have the latest GridION and MinION systems on display - Booth 418/420!
Say whaaat?
What's the over-under that they're hollow boxes?
GW_OK 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 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO