SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > The Pipeline



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Data Analyst, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK Oxford Nanopore Industry Jobs! 0 05-05-2009 06:11 AM
Opportunities at Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK Oxford Nanopore Industry Jobs! 0 03-05-2009 07:52 AM
Opportunities at Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK Oxford Nanopore Industry Jobs! 6 12-10-2008 05:27 AM
Oxford Nanopore mccullou The Pipeline 0 10-22-2008 09:05 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-09-2012, 03:49 AM   #21
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBrooks View Post
Maybe ONT have learnt from PacBio's mistakes. Remember the anticlimax when you first saw PacBio data?
There is some truth to that. Unfortunately this is starting to feel like "Duke Nukem Forever".
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 06:54 AM   #22
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 383
Default

I think they could release something and just put a giant red asterisk next to it saying this is only really, really preliminary data, really.

Any data at all would, I think, get people to cut them some slack.
GW_OK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 08:56 AM   #23
earonesty
Member
 
Location: United States of America

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBrooks View Post
Maybe ONT have learnt from PacBio's mistakes. Remember the anticlimax when you first saw PacBio data?

Nanopore error rate is around 4% ~Q14, or at least it was 9 months ago.
The problem is we've all been spoilt by Illumina SBS and will see anything with < Q30 (or even Q20). They've gone on record saying they won't release anything until error is <1% (which is probably nearer the acceptable level). How far away from that they are is anyone's guess at the moment.
PacBio reads, at Q8, are still quite useful for scaffolding assemblies. Crazy to hold back data when there are lots of people who could make use of long Q14 reads right now.
earonesty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 10:49 AM   #24
BadDNA
Junior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4
Default Let us scaffold!

Quote:
Originally Posted by earonesty View Post
PacBio reads, at Q8, are still quite useful for scaffolding assemblies. Crazy to hold back data when there are lots of people who could make use of long Q14 reads right now.
I agree completely!
BadDNA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 05:18 AM   #25
DaleYuzuki
Member
 
Location: Maryland USA

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 12
Default

If anyone's interested, I wrote up this post after talking with Oxford and several others at ASHG.

Really too bad that there wasn't any firm specifications or pricing.

Dale
DaleYuzuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 05:49 AM   #26
TonyBrooks
Senior Member
 
Location: London

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by earonesty View Post
PacBio reads, at Q8, are still quite useful for scaffolding assemblies. Crazy to hold back data when there are lots of people who could make use of long Q14 reads right now.
The problem is that scaffold runs for de novo are so niche in the grand scheme of things. The real money will be in resequencing, RNA-Seq, ChIP-Seq etc. As a core group, I'd say 99% of things we get asked to do fall into those categories. There's still a long way to go for ONT until it becomes a viable alternative.
Q14 is only really of value when you have a bunch of short read Q30s you can pin to the scaffold.
TonyBrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 10:22 PM   #27
ECO
--Site Admin--
 
Location: SF Bay Area, CA, USA

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleYuzuki View Post
If anyone's interested, I wrote up this post after talking with Oxford and several others at ASHG.

Really too bad that there wasn't any firm specifications or pricing.

Dale
That ONT post mentioned Ion Torrent's party more than it did ONT. Heh.
ECO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 05:59 AM   #28
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 383
Default

Dale's post does have an insightful comment at the bottom. How much of the silence from ONT is because they don't have anything to show and how much is due to their current arbitration with Illumina? Maybe they're just playing it close to the vest?
GW_OK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 09:04 PM   #29
seqnextgen
Junior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBrooks View Post
The problem is that scaffold runs for de novo are so niche in the grand scheme of things. The real money will be in resequencing, RNA-Seq, ChIP-Seq etc. As a core group, I'd say 99% of things we get asked to do fall into those categories. There's still a long way to go for ONT until it becomes a viable alternative.
Q14 is only really of value when you have a bunch of short read Q30s you can pin to the scaffold.
Maybe, but once de novo assembly is really available with a reasonable price, I believe it is the way to go. Ever wonder where those "copy number variants" are in a genome. It might be hard to believe that where they are is not important.
seqnextgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 03:43 AM   #30
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,218
Default

The other major claim is that no library construction (or even DNA purification) is required. That would immediately put these devices in their own league. That makes HiSeqs and Torrents niche instruments.

Of course there is the weaselly "sample needs 10 base single stranded leader" statement. Not sure what that means. Like you need a cos site digested with lambda terminase? Or you can just heat your sample a little to melt the terminii?

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 05:36 AM   #31
seqnextgen
Junior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmiguel View Post
The other major claim is that no library construction (or even DNA purification) is required. That would immediately put these devices in their own league. That makes HiSeqs and Torrents niche instruments.

....

--
Phillip
I think ECO can probably comment on this better. All I know is once you go to single molecule world, any impurity can kill the sequencing mechanism / basecalling accuracy easily. Any "single molecule" impurities including any ion that one does not anticipate during engineering phase is the enemy, so, good luck for the "no sample preparation" claim. (Not saying it can not be simple, but sequencing DNA in blood with zero sample-prep to get high throughput results? one can judge that with common sense...)
seqnextgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:32 PM   #32
Amiga
Junior Member
 
Location: Boston

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4
Default

The grand scheme of things of for-profit sector is targeted resequencing for diagnostic. The only thing ONT are proposing that could be useful to them is the no sample prep at all. And I am having a hard time believing that.

While a $100 disposable cartridge would be nice too, especially to forensic and DTC providers, a Q14 isn't useful for any of them.

I agree with other people prediction that ONT will be the next PacBio. It's noble to claim that they will delay their launch until they get Q30, but they need investors, and the current ones will eventually want to cash in. PacBio was able to hype and overhype for 5 years. How much longer is it going to be for ONT?
Amiga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 10:10 PM   #33
seqnextgen
Junior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7
Default

Just a quick reminder of some facts. For ONT to be next PacBio, at least they need to show some data and publish papers in NEJM from sample to print within weeks, not once, but twice. And, they will also need to publish DNA sequencing data/DNA modification data in Nature / Nature Biotech to show important biological results that can not be resolved by 2nd gen. sequencing / Sanger sequencing, etc. (Not just nucleotide identification. DNA sequencing is not about identifying bases/short segments. DNA sequencing should be about efficiently linking long range information...) Commercially successfully or not, the publications and real data already help to reveal some new biology. Until nanopore is no longer nanovapor, there is no fair comparison.

Last edited by seqnextgen; 11-16-2012 at 08:11 PM.
seqnextgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:30 AM   #34
BBoy
Member
 
Location: Pacific Northwest

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seqnextgen View Post
Just a quick reminder of some facts. For ONT to be next PacBio, at least they need to show some data and publish papers in NEJM from sample to print within weeks, not once, but twice. And, they will also need to publish DNA sequencing data/DNA modification data in Nature / Nature Biotech to show important biological results that can not be resolved by 2nd gen. sequencing / Sanger sequencing, etc. (Not just nucleotide identification. DNA sequencing is not about identifying bases/short segments. DNA sequencing should be about efficiently linking long range information...) Commercially successfully or not, the publications and real data already help to reveal some new biology. Until nanopore is no longer nanovapor, there is no fair comparison.
Well said...
BBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 05:47 PM   #35
paulk
Junior Member
 
Location: Toronto, Canada

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBrooks View Post
The problem is that scaffold runs for de novo are so niche in the grand scheme of things.
Not really; I'd love to be able to quickly map out cancer genome rearrangements and a 4% error rate wouldn't bother me for that purpose.

I wonder what updates will come out next week at AGBT...
__________________
Paul Krzyzanowski
Blog: www.checkmatescientist.net
paulk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 10:00 AM   #36
seqnextgen
Junior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulk View Post
Not really; I'd love to be able to quickly map out cancer genome rearrangements and a 4% error rate wouldn't bother me for that purpose.

I wonder what updates will come out next week at AGBT...
AFAIK, nothing..... no data, no status update, not even a cool USB sequencer full with data found in a bar
seqnextgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 04:49 AM   #37
krobison
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston area

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seqnextgen View Post
AFAIK, nothing..... no data, no status update, not even a cool USB sequencer full with data found in a bar
What? You weren't out on the strand digging through sand like a madman?
krobison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 09:39 PM   #38
BBoy
Member
 
Location: Pacific Northwest

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krobison View Post
Apparently we have all been asleep at the wheel. The minion has been out for decades, the first model has even made it to a museum:
http://core-genomics.blogspot.com/20...announced.html
BBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 06:47 AM   #39
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krobison View Post
I confess that I did stroll through the beach area around the suites (on my way to my next meeting! I was going through there anyway, honest!) looking for disturbed sand patches.

I should have been stalking the bar, apparently.
GW_OK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 06:47 AM   #40
seqnextgen
Junior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krobison View Post
I thought it was a joke originally, obviously, pathogenomics did find a MiniIon in AGBT. This is probably more comprehensive non-update one can find now
http://pathogenomics.bham.ac.uk/blog...-at-agbt-2013/
seqnextgen 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 11:37 PM.


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