SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Illumina/Solexa



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Multiple Runs doubledaffy Bioinformatics 1 05-30-2013 08:09 AM
Concerns for combining data from HiSeq 2000 and HiSeq 2500 jaaker Illumina/Solexa 1 02-04-2013 02:56 PM
how many bootstrapping runs sphil Bioinformatics 0 05-16-2012 01:24 AM
QA of 454/FLX runs maasha Bioinformatics 0 11-15-2010 01:16 AM
Titanium Runs pr0t3us 454 Pyrosequencing 6 06-24-2009 07:36 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-06-2013, 06:41 AM   #1
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 411
Default 1 Tbp runs, but probably not on *your* Hiseq

Do you own or have access to a Hiseq?

Are you pumped about 6-day, 1Tbp runs?

Was your machine purchased in 2013?

If you answered "no" to that last question you can forget about the latest run chemistry, apparently. In learning more about the latest and greatest run specs I've become a bit dismayed on hearing that Hiseq's are going to need the 'v3' camera to be compatible, and those are only on machines with S/N 14xx. Has anyone else heard differently? Is this a smart thing for Illumina to do, given the extremely large install base already out there?
GW_OK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 07:38 AM   #2
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,975
Default

Everyone with a HiSeq is not going to need (even though they may want) 1Tb - 6 day runs. Realistically this decision (if true) will affect a small subset of customer sites/machines.

Optics/electronics/processing power needed to support the new chemistry perhaps makes it less sensible to upgrade (rebuild) a machine in place. This would require a few days of a service engineer's time per machine. These considerations must negatively impact the "upgrade price" Illumina would have to charge for the upgrade.

Before long leasing a sequencer may start making more sense than buying one.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 07:58 AM   #3
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 411
Default

As a human-centric core with users increasingly interested in WGS, I could certainly use the upgrade. I'm afraid this also means that the pre-2013 machines will not be able to run the PE250's whenever they come out, something my microbiome/metagenomics keep asking me about so they can start really multiplexing samples.

I do agree that leasing is now most likely going to be the way to procure an instrument, and I am glad that my core only has another year or so left on our second machine.
GW_OK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 08:12 AM   #4
mgogol
Senior Member
 
Location: Kansas City

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 197
Default

I think it was kind of shady of illumina to do that. They should have been really clear when they announced it, at least.
mgogol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 09:30 AM   #5
SNPsaurus
Registered Vendor
 
Location: Eugene, OR

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 496
Default

Users may not need the 1 Tb upgrade, but core facilities may have a harder time if users see that they can get more reads elsewhere. The ballpark cost to upgrade as my local facility heard was $500k, and the machine would need to be removed from the site, which makes that option not realistic.
__________________
Providing nextRAD genotyping and PacBio sequencing services. http://snpsaurus.com
SNPsaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 01:45 PM   #6
kmcarr
Senior Member
 
Location: USA, Midwest

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,167
Default

Is there a link detailing the requirements for the 1Tbp chemistry?
kmcarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 02:44 PM   #7
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNPsaurus View Post
Users may not need the 1 Tb upgrade, but core facilities may have a harder time if users see that they can get more reads elsewhere. The ballpark cost to upgrade as my local facility heard was $500k, and the machine would need to be removed from the site, which makes that option not realistic.
That cost estimates sounds over the top (unless it was for more than one machine).

As with these things the new chemistry is bound to come with a price premium so the effective cost for the end users will be higher (though they will get more data).

To upgrade or not would be a dilemma for facilities/units that have only one or a couple of machines.

Does anyone know if this upgrade includes the ordered flowcells along with new chemistry or just one of the two?
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 02:47 PM   #8
bilyl
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW_OK View Post
As a human-centric core with users increasingly interested in WGS, I could certainly use the upgrade. I'm afraid this also means that the pre-2013 machines will not be able to run the PE250's whenever they come out, something my microbiome/metagenomics keep asking me about so they can start really multiplexing samples.

I do agree that leasing is now most likely going to be the way to procure an instrument, and I am glad that my core only has another year or so left on our second machine.
Why do you think the 2x250 runs will be tied to new machines? Do you have a source for that?
bilyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 04:27 AM   #9
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmcarr View Post
Is there a link detailing the requirements for the 1Tbp chemistry?
Not as of yet. This quote from In Sequence is where I first picked up on it, then verified with both an FSE and my sales rep:
Quote:
All factory-built 2500 and 1500 systems are eligible, as well as 2000 and 1000 systems that were shipped in 2013.
GW_OK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 04:28 AM   #10
GW_OK
Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilyl View Post
Why do you think the 2x250 runs will be tied to new machines? Do you have a source for that?
Upgrades tend to be additive. If they're already showing a tendency to move beyond the current hardware, why make the next upgrade backwards compatible?
GW_OK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 07:08 PM   #11
snetmcom
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 157
Default

I'm trying to scale down, not up. Seems unusual for them to be doing this, but new chemistry might entice other folks.
snetmcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 07:29 PM   #12
bilyl
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snetmcom View Post
I'm trying to scale down, not up. Seems unusual for them to be doing this, but new chemistry might entice other folks.
This is what I don't understand. I'm sure that the majority of Illumina's revenues don't come from the machines themselves but rather the sequencing kits. How many Universities (or companies, for that matter) will pony up for a new HiSeq machine if they invested in one during the past 2-3 years? It's really bizarre and means that only a few select places will be able to utilize the "v3" HiSeq chemistry and that's not very good for their revenue.
bilyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 02:15 AM   #13
andibody
Member
 
Location: Vienna

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 45
Default

Our local sales representative just explained that the 2x250 upgrade is independent from the 1Tb upgrade.
One of our HiSeqs was upgraded this year to 2500 but it seems that the camera is still too old for for 1Tb upgrade (not to mention our 2011 HiSeq) and I was just told there is no way to upgrade the camera?!
It would be frustrating if we need to trade in our HiSeqs for newer ones if it's not at very reasonable conditions.
Think it's bad policy to announce such an upgrade without including perspectives for customers that didn't buy their HiSeq yesterday (most of us).
If the 1Tb upgrade substantially shifts the EUR per Gbp ratio to the better, this update will be a must for core facilities if they want to stay competitive.
andibody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 08:59 AM   #14
AllSeq
Registered Vendor
 
Location: San Diego, CA

Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andibody View Post
Our local sales representative just explained that the 2x250 upgrade is independent from the 1Tb upgrade.
One of our HiSeqs was upgraded this year to 2500 but it seems that the camera is still too old for for 1Tb upgrade (not to mention our 2011 HiSeq) and I was just told there is no way to upgrade the camera?!
It would be frustrating if we need to trade in our HiSeqs for newer ones if it's not at very reasonable conditions.
Think it's bad policy to announce such an upgrade without including perspectives for customers that didn't buy their HiSeq yesterday (most of us).
If the 1Tb upgrade substantially shifts the EUR per Gbp ratio to the better, this update will be a must for core facilities if they want to stay competitive.
There are three upcoming 'upgrades' for the HiSeq platform, and all are independent of each other:
1) 1Tb kits (which require 'factory installed' 2500/1500s or 2013 2000/1000s)
2) 2X250 kits (no special requirements as far as I know)
3) semi-ordered flow cells (available only for certain applications)

I've talked with a number of people at Illumina and it seems the 1Tb upgrade for 'old' HiSeqs would be prohibitively expensive as it would entail shipping the instrument back to Illumina (and replacing multiple parts).

They then reminded me that the HiSeq has seen a 3-fold increase in capacity since the original launch, so at least you have that. ;-) But I definitely agree that it won't be possible to compete on price alone without the 1Tb upgrade.

Shawn
AllSeq
__________________
AllSeq - The Sequencing Marketplace
info@AllSeq.com
www.AllSeq.com
AllSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 08:56 PM   #15
BBoy
Member
 
Location: Pacific Northwest

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 52
Default

So how many of you bought video players or Rokus in 2012 and tried to hook them up to 3+ year old TV without HDMI ports? Betcha you did not think you were screwed by the TV maker and we're "entitled" to trade in the TV for a "rreasonable cost". Or when a car model in 2013 had some gizmo and you find out that it simply was not compatible with the older design? Betcha you don't expect auto makers to list what in the new model is not backward compatible with the old model.

Frankly the tone of this discussion is more than a bit odd. True, commrrcia equipment is held to a higher standard but expecting the upgrade of a 3 year old major component is not exactly reasonable.
BBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 09:53 PM   #16
SNPsaurus
Registered Vendor
 
Location: Eugene, OR

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 496
Default

I think it is reasonable for Illumina to have the upgrade path... it is just unfortunate that many facilities are possibly facing a difficult situation. It is also unfortunate that many machines were recently upgraded to the 2500 and it wasn't clear at that time that the 2500 upgrade was substantially different from a factory-built 2500.
__________________
Providing nextRAD genotyping and PacBio sequencing services. http://snpsaurus.com
SNPsaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 03:03 AM   #17
kmcarr
Senior Member
 
Location: USA, Midwest

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBoy View Post
Or when a car model in 2013 had some gizmo and you find out that it simply was not compatible with the older design? Betcha you don't expect auto makers to list what in the new model is not backward compatible with the old model.
But it is obvious to the owner of a 2010 Toyota Carolla that the 2013 is a different car. The problem is Illumina never made clear that they were making substantial changes to instruments being sold as "HiSeq 2000", leaving the impression that all HiSeq 2000s sold are substantially identical. I imagine they could have avoided much of this blow back had they simply renamed the instrument at the time improved the camera system (e.g. HiSeq 2000 Model II).
kmcarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 04:46 PM   #18
bilyl
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBoy View Post
So how many of you bought video players or Rokus in 2012 and tried to hook them up to 3+ year old TV without HDMI ports? Betcha you did not think you were screwed by the TV maker and we're "entitled" to trade in the TV for a "rreasonable cost". Or when a car model in 2013 had some gizmo and you find out that it simply was not compatible with the older design? Betcha you don't expect auto makers to list what in the new model is not backward compatible with the old model.

Frankly the tone of this discussion is more than a bit odd. True, commrrcia equipment is held to a higher standard but expecting the upgrade of a 3 year old major component is not exactly reasonable.
That's ridiculous. For one thing, most of us are academics and we don't work in the free market. A HiSeq costs 750k and is a huge capital expense, especially with today's limited NIH/govt funding. If we were talking about consumer goods then you would have a point.

Secondly, by having the new kits be unusable on the older machines, Illumina is purposely starving themselves of revenue. It is the reagent kits that make most of the money -- there aren't that many HiSeqs around the world.

Lastly, users are disappointed in this thread because all upgraded machines are thought to be "HiSeq 2500"s except for some speed issues. Sequencing centers paid money to get their 2000s upgraded (many of them happened this year!!), and there was no guidance from the company on how these won't be able to use new kits. If these centers had known, many of them would have passed on the upgrade and saved up for a brand new machine.
bilyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2013, 12:29 AM   #19
ymc
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 498
Default

Wow. 1Tbp in 6 days! That's 3x the throughput of 600Gbp in 11 days!

If we assume the machine can lasts 2 yrs and costs $750K, then the per day equipment amortization cost will drop from $1,027 to $342!
ymc 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 04:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO