SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Ion Torrent



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ion Torrent vs MiSeq vs GS Junior razibus General 39 11-08-2015 12:45 PM
Alternative (cheaper) reagents for Ion Torrent PGM sequencer Gorbenzer Ion Torrent 10 11-30-2013 04:20 PM
Ion Torrent PGM multiplexing eosin Ion Torrent 7 03-29-2012 05:00 PM
Ion Torrent/MiSeq Ordering riegs General 3 12-28-2011 07:30 AM
Ion Torrent PGM data with Mosaik-aligner Magnus Bioinformatics 0 05-19-2011 03:59 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-03-2012, 06:36 AM   #21
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elcannibal View Post
Back order issues are certainly not unique to Illumina, in fact they probably stand out because their customers are less used to it !
Let's not go overboard here. Illumina does have perennial issues with back orders. Once or twice, you can attribute to scaling issues, etc. But intermittent failures to have enough stock on hand to quickly process orders that stretches out over years points to design flaws in their supply chain.

Applied Biosystems frequently had issues of this sort in the SOLiD1-4 days. But often they were of the form one item out of 30 needed to make libraries and do a run would be not available.

The poor instrument-run assessment/trouble-shooting tools on the 454 makes it nearly impossible to determine whether you got bad reagents from Roche, or your runs are working sub-par for some other reason. But in my paranoid moments I suspect they shipped a lot of marginal lots of reagents.

Anyway, I think the message is that all the companies suck in this regard. Could be an area where improvement would give them a competitive advantage, but either they can't see that or see the issues they face as intractable.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 01:29 PM   #22
mattarno
Member
 
Location: London, UK

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 16
Default instrument reliability

sorry to stick my oar in but I'd like to ask the forum a (perhaps naive) question regarding reliability of illumina sequencers. speaking from anecdotal experience (i.e. chatting to various illumina owners in and around london) it seems that there are lots of HiSeq/HiScan machines that have broken down since installation and required extensive repair/rebuilding and even complete replacement.

So my questions are: how many other illumina owners have experienced reliability problems, including significant down time and machine replacement? Is this just isolated instances or my bias? is it possible to assess the scale of the problem (i.e. % of machines sold, or % of potential run time lost due to repairs etc.) if it actually exists?

if this is a real issue, is there an official line or response from Illumina?

how do illumina machines compare with other platforms (ion torrent, roche/454) for reliability - bearing in mind the illumina market share?

thanks for any input on these questions, I would really welcome the opinions of the seqanswers community.

Matt
mattarno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 06:40 AM   #23
Nitrogen-DNE-sulfer
Member
 
Location: In CPT code hell

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
Default

Its a good paper and I'll throw my unsolicited recommendations on there as well. I think Nick was generous with the Ion platform. The Library prep, EmPCR and CAFIE correction CPU time after the run were not baked into the time comparison. Putting Ion down as a 3 hr run should really be more like 3hr of Lib+emPCR+enrichment+quant up front, then a 3hr run, and then a few hours of CPU to get CAFIE adjusted fastqs before you have reads you can run with. Nextera + MiSeq run should be the apples to apples time comparison and this should be normalized to read length. 300 cycles of terminator data next to 100bp of homopolymer prone extentions where on average 2.3 bases per cycle are acquired is not apples to apples. In light of this, I dont see a single thing the Ion is good at (at this time point).
I'm also seeing that the Ion data only used 90% of the data while the ILMN and 454 were using closer to 99% of the data. If the Ion data was filtered more aggressively and still had worse performance its a bit unsettling.. Is this the right way to read this are did the emulsions have higher doublets on the poisson dilution than the 454 data?

Ion is certainly improving quickly but I see 454 as a prophet for their future. 7 years later the homopolymer issues is still only 5X better and not enough to displace the indel error significantly found in the supp. 1000X higher indel error rate for ion is buried in the supplement and the Ion data appears to have an additional stranded bias the 454 platform doesnt have. My advice is to not pay too much attention to the futures people sell in this field. Particularly the ones which have chronically bled other rich parties in the game (Roche) potentially costing them billions to address through hostile take overs.

One thing I currently miss as a former emPCR user gone to clusters on MiSeq is the ability to use no amplification libraries and let emPCR capture these limited libraries and enrich them for better sequencing performance. The decoupling of emPCR from detection can be helpful for low input libraries. Currently the MiSeq requires you take 10ul of library and dilute it 200 fold before clustering and only 1/10th of this dilution makes it into the flow cell (600ul load and a flow cell likely to only hold 50ul). If anyone has protocols for low amp libraries on MiSeq...I'm all ears.
Nitrogen-DNE-sulfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:13 PM   #24
snetmcom
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrogen-DNE-sulfer View Post
Its a good paper and I'll throw my unsolicited recommendations on there as well. I think Nick was generous with the Ion platform. The Library prep, EmPCR and CAFIE correction CPU time after the run were not baked into the time comparison. Putting Ion down as a 3 hr run should really be more like 3hr of Lib+emPCR+enrichment+quant up front, then a 3hr run, and then a few hours of CPU to get CAFIE adjusted fastqs before you have reads you can run with. Nextera + MiSeq run should be the apples to apples time comparison and this should be normalized to read length. 300 cycles of terminator data next to 100bp of homopolymer prone extentions where on average 2.3 bases per cycle are acquired is not apples to apples. In light of this, I dont see a single thing the Ion is good at (at this time point).
I'm also seeing that the Ion data only used 90% of the data while the ILMN and 454 were using closer to 99% of the data. If the Ion data was filtered more aggressively and still had worse performance its a bit unsettling.. Is this the right way to read this are did the emulsions have higher doublets on the poisson dilution than the 454 data?

Ion is certainly improving quickly but I see 454 as a prophet for their future. 7 years later the homopolymer issues is still only 5X better and not enough to displace the indel error significantly found in the supp. 1000X higher indel error rate for ion is buried in the supplement and the Ion data appears to have an additional stranded bias the 454 platform doesnt have. My advice is to not pay too much attention to the futures people sell in this field. Particularly the ones which have chronically bled other rich parties in the game (Roche) potentially costing them billions to address through hostile take overs.

One thing I currently miss as a former emPCR user gone to clusters on MiSeq is the ability to use no amplification libraries and let emPCR capture these limited libraries and enrich them for better sequencing performance. The decoupling of emPCR from detection can be helpful for low input libraries. Currently the MiSeq requires you take 10ul of library and dilute it 200 fold before clustering and only 1/10th of this dilution makes it into the flow cell (600ul load and a flow cell likely to only hold 50ul). If anyone has protocols for low amp libraries on MiSeq...I'm all ears.

i think you bring up good points, but you might be lacking PGM experience. He did indeed show ePCR time in many of the diagrams. The PGM does not have hours for CAFIE or analysis. The fastq is ready almost immediately after the run with 314 and 316. It's only hours after the run if you are doing full alignments on the larger chips. Illumina data is always filtered. I think all the platforms do this during primary now. The homopolymer accuracy has already surpassed 454. Nothing will be easier than clusters, but imaging time scales.
snetmcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 02:27 PM   #25
Nitrogen-DNE-sulfer
Member
 
Location: In CPT code hell

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
Default

Can anyone comment on the strand specific error specific to the PGM? Has this improved with their latest data release? Can you point to data where the Homopolymer data is better than 454? Its not in this paper or evident in data I have from 454 and what Ion has recently posted. They are improving quickly and I wish the paper had that chart as I think it would have done a lot more justice to the platforms. Ion is improving at a much faster rate than 454. I reserve judgement on growth speeds on Ion vs ILMN as one party is increasing from little to more while the other is shrinking from too much to bite size so the comparison is never fair. Whats clear to me is from a practical standpoint 2 runs per ion per day and 1 from MiSeq. Pushing 3 runs a day with Ion and all of the ancillary work requires more people which offset the costs of the cheaper box but would like to hear more...
Nitrogen-DNE-sulfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 01:48 PM   #26
james hadfield
Moderator
Cambridge, UK
Community Forum
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 221
Default

Hi Matt,
I'd agree with Phil about reliability, everyone sucks! My experience with almost every new technology has been the first few are unreliable, manufacturing catches up with R&D and the fiex gest into production machines tehn things start working after six months or so. Our first GA1 installed in 2007 was not great from data quality and yield perspectives, but it was fun.
I've had machines replaced in the first year after install, but it is hard to make a case. Record every instance of something going worng and evidence the impact in lost time or opportunity.
James.
james hadfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 12:13 AM   #27
ramujana
Member
 
Location: Vilnius

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickloman View Post
That's right, but bear in mind there were very few bases with that quality in the dataset (c.f. top panel of Figure 1). I tried to represent this with the area of the point, but I'm not sure I did a very good job getting the dynamic range across.
Recently i've got a response from LifeTechnologies representatives - what would be your comments regarding this:

Loman’s paper is very popular thanks to Illumina. However, we have some things to say about it:
Quote:
1. These type of papers comparing platforms are usually not very helpful, as the peer-review process delays publication too much to consider them state-of-the-art information. It might not be so critical for established technologies (Illumina), because their potential improvements are necessarily limited. However, 6 months in a technology that is evolving so fast as Ion Torrent does is too much. The paper uses old (July 2011), short read-length (100nt) chemistry, which is completely obsolete by now.
2. The authors haven’t consider the operator bias, comparing results obtained in their lab with others generated by the manufacturers (other hands, different lab)
3. The authors haven’t considerer the analysis (filtering and trimming) bias. There is no information on how did Illumina analyze the data generated (or even, how many runs did they perform to generate them).

Life Technologies has sent a letter to Nature Biotechnology’s editor highlighting these facts (attached). I’ll let you know in case we receive any answer.

In parallel we’ve done 3 experiments:

1. We’ve repeated the run using the same sample with our current 200nt chemistry and we’ve obtained homopolymer accuracy (which has improved a 450% in the last 9 months), the average raw accuracy (99.6% in May 2012 vs 97.2% in July 2011), and the % of QV30 bases (99,9% accuracy).
2. We’ve repeated the run using a pre-launch version of our 2H 2012 chemistry showing average accuracy (99,7%) and % of QV30 bases, now with a 300nt read length.
3. We’ve used all these data for de novo genome assembly and compared it to Illumina’s results. This is what really makes sense. QV values are just the result of applying a manufacturer generated algorithm; you can give them the value you want. But how well do data work when pushed to generate meaningful results? Ask assembly metrics (number of contigs _fewer is better_ or contig length_longer is better) and you’ll have the clue.
ramujana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 04:41 AM   #28
krobison
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston area

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 747
Default

It is a bit disingenuous of Life Tech to complain that Loman's paper used chemistry nobody is using right now, but then tout a chemistry that nobody can use right now.
krobison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 07:52 AM   #29
Chipper
Senior Member
 
Location: Sweden

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 324
Default

Just like what Illumina does with the
miseq...
Chipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 10:16 AM   #30
Joann
Senior Member
 
Location: Woodbridge CT

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 231
Default Chemistry?

Look, it's a no brainer that significant clinical implementation of these platforms calls for a set chemistry protocol, not an evolving one. That's why some focus on external calibration approaches (like in-bred flies) is important even if it could allow for a competing machine, etc. to look better.
Joann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 01:09 AM   #31
Jeremy
Senior Member
 
Location: Pathum Thani, Thailand

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 190
Default

Any updates on the MiSeq vs Ion comparison?

Last edited by Jeremy; 08-16-2012 at 01:32 AM.
Jeremy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 03:27 AM   #32
genseq
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 88
Default "The Better Desktop DNA Sequencer May Be Losing The Marketing War"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewh...marketing-war/
Attached Images
File Type: png Groberg-MiSeq-PGM-sales1.png (15.8 KB, 70 views)
genseq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 05:19 AM   #33
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by genseq View Post
Thanks for the link.

I think the MiSeq as a platform currently beats the Ion Torrent. But there are issues at work here that are not considered in the Forbes article.

Illumina (Solexa) took and early lead over Applied Biosystems in the next generation sequencing realm from the start and never allowed that lead to diminish. There were various factors in play, but most tellingly was the agility with which Illumina developed and deployed new technologies.

However, with Life Technology's acquisition of Ion Torrent, it seems to me that factor -- the raw drive and ability to advance for this instrument system is at least on par with that of Illumina.

Face it, when you buy a sequencer today, you are purchasing not just what it is now, but what it will become via hardware retrofitting and new chemistry over the coming months and years.

This is a front upon which I do not think Illumina has been attacked before. Previously they were the rapid innovators against the lumbering Life Technologies (SOLiD) and Roche (GS-FLX) behemoths. Alas, I am seeing some signs of weakness in Illumina's capabilities in this regard:

(1) The v2 chemistry roll-out for the MiSeq has been slower than expected, and disjointed. Currently the Illumina website will extoll the virtues of v2 and, as of today, even advertises the reagents for sale. But the MiSeq Control Software 2.0 necessary to run the new chemistry remains unavailable.

(2) Detailed information necessary to utilize the MiSeq as an amplicon sequencing platform -- an absolute requirement for a 454-replacement and, indeed, to compete with the the Ion Torrent -- is still difficult to come by. Maddeningly, the underlying components to accomplish this are readily available. It harkens back to Roche's insanely long delay in releasing an official cDNA sequencing methodology.

(3) Illumina is succumbing to the allure of the "intellectual propertization of methodology". Instead of deliberately open sourcing all their recommended library construction technologies, they are becoming increasing furtive about releasing information to their own customers. Their refusal to detail the sequence and concentrations of many of the primers included in their SBS and clustering kits is an outrage and an impediment to their customer's ability to pick up the amplicon "baton" that they have dropped.

All of the above are indications to me of a "hardening of the arteries" of Illumina. While they have achieved dominance for the time being, I think they would do well to contemplate how they came to this juncture and realize they are vulnerable to attack from the same flank they have used to fell the previous giants in this arena.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 07:43 AM   #34
ningwang
Junior Member
 
Location: Boston

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6
Default I think pmiguel makes an important point here

When you're buying a machine, you're not just buying for the capabilities today, but how it's going to develop in the future. I suspect both companies will be able to improve on raw accuracy and Gb/run, but there are inherent "issues" with both technologies to consider. What I'd be interested in knowing are:

1. Ion Proton's chemistry has a well-known issue calling homopolymers. I've always wondered why they don't have a second option that uses modified nucleotides so users can decide for themselves whether or not they want to trade higher accuracy for a longer run time. In any case, I hear recent software upgrades have improved Ion's homopolymer issue, but I wonder how much more they can do here.

2. Ion Proton will likely have a huge advantage if you measure throughput by time (as opposed to per run). Imagine once you get to 250Gb per run (which Ion claims P3 will be in less than 2 years), do you really need higher throughput per run unless you have a need for some serious multiplexing? I suspect by then, your throughput advantage would only come in reducing the run time. What else can Illumina do to reduce Miseq's run time, or are they fundamentally restricted by the chemistry & camera speed? If Illumina needs to change either one, your existing Miseq would probably need a major upgrade/replacement to keep up.
ningwang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 07:24 PM   #35
krobison
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston area

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ningwang View Post
2. Ion Proton will likely have a huge advantage if you measure throughput by time (as opposed to per run). Imagine once you get to 250Gb per run (which Ion claims P3 will be in less than 2 years), do you really need higher throughput per run unless you have a need for some serious multiplexing?
For metagenomics, it's hard to imagine ever deciding you have enough throughput :-)

Also, if you are sequencing some plant genomes, you would find this useful -- members of the lily family often have genomes 50X the size of human (!)
krobison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2012, 04:59 AM   #36
genseq
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 88
Default

"The future of genome sequencing" (ru):
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?a...post&id=157395
genseq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 04:34 AM   #37
james hadfield
Moderator
Cambridge, UK
Community Forum
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 221
Default

Ahhrg! The image on slide number 11 for the 2500 flowcell comes from my blog. It was a mock up from a decscription and there is now a real flowcell to look at.
james hadfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 04:52 AM   #38
mattarno
Member
 
Location: London, UK

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 16
Default

so it only has two lanes? is that because of higher depth per indexed sample?
mattarno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 06:26 PM   #39
genseq
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by james hadfield View Post
Ahhrg! The image on slide number 11 for the 2500 flowcell comes from my blog. It was a mock up from a decscription and there is now a real flowcell to look at.
Thank you very much!
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Biomics - 2012-1.pdf (3.07 MB, 104 views)
genseq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 11:19 AM   #40
cement_head
Senior Member
 
Location: Oxford, Ohio

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 252
Question

Hi All,

Great thread, very helpful. We are also seriously looking at both the ION Torrent PGM and the MiSeq systems. We can only afford one - but there's a twist to our situation. I run a core DNA/Genomics lab and we are an "open" lab - that is, we train users on the instrumentation and they do the actually wet work themselves (a few exceptions). So, in this case, it looks as though the MiSeq would be far and away the best choice.

However, we have several universities within about twenty minutes that have both MiSeqs and HiSeqs avaiilable. So, people who are interested in de novo, or in RNASeq are more likely to use the MiSeq to test the library for a HiSeq run. So, it might be better to have a different instrument available at our facility, and it seems that targeted amplicon sequencing is much better and easier on the ION Torrent.

It's really difficult to choose because, as has been pointed out, one is really buying into the "future" of these machines, and no-one wants to get stuck with a lemon/lemon-tech. I'm starting to lean towards the MiSeq, because of it's ease-of-use.

Has anyone that has recently purchased an ION Torrent care to share thier experiences?

Still undecided,
CH

Last edited by cement_head; 12-17-2012 at 11:22 AM.
cement_head 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 04:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO