SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illumina Nextra prep without using Illumina reagents crsimao Illumina/Solexa 4 04-14-2015 10:29 AM
Comparison between SOLiD, Illumina MiSeq and Illumina HiSeq NGS_New_User SOLiD 0 12-12-2012 11:37 AM
bowtie command line for Illumina Hiseq 2000 with Illumina 1.5+ quality encoding files rworthi Illumina/Solexa 4 09-28-2011 11:25 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-10-2017, 11:52 AM   #21
AllSeq
Registered Vendor
 
Location: San Diego, CA

Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmcarr View Post

UPDATE: I just got an official, in person confirmation from two Illumina FAS's, the NovaSeq is TWO color chemistry.
@illumina also just confirmed 2-color via Twitter.
__________________
AllSeq - The Sequencing Marketplace
[email protected]
www.AllSeq.com
AllSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 10:15 PM   #22
SNPsaurus
Registered Vendor
 
Location: Eugene, OR

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 416
Default

Mick Watson tweeted:
‏@BioMickWatson
NovaSeq flowcells have up to 4 lanes but only one loading port :-)

I haven't seen this confirmed, but it is going to be a little tough for facilities that aren't sequencing dozens of large genomes at a time to load single projects that require 3 billion reads. Will a lab wanting to sequence 10 exomes have any use for the Novaseq? Either they team up with other labs and deal with one of them doing something dumb that makes the whole run fail, or they use a S1 chip (will that be as cheap per nuc as S2/3/4?) or continue to use HS2500/4000s.
__________________
Providing nextRAD genotyping services. http://snpsaurus.com
SNPsaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 05:01 AM   #23
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,495
Default

Dr. Keith Robinson talks about NovaSeq in this entry.

As long as Illumina does not discontinue HiSeq 2500, small cores can breath a sigh of relief.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 07:36 AM   #24
Jessica_L
Senior Member
 
Location: Washington, D.C. metro area

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmcarr View Post
Having 4 channels doesn't mean they are separate lanes in the same sense as the HiSeq. The NextSeq 500/550 flow cells look just like that with 4 channels yet there is but a single input port so the same sample gets distributed to all 4. These flow cells also look very much like NextSeq flow cells; huge size, surrounded by a plastic frame. The similarity to NextSeq/MiniSeq lends credence to the notion that the NovaSeq supports only 2 color chemistry.

UPDATE: I just got an official, in person confirmation from two Illumina FAS's, the NovaSeq is TWO color chemistry.
Thanks for the info and updates, kmcarr. I haven't had a chance to see a NextSeq in action so I didn't realize all the channels loaded from a single input.
Jessica_L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 07:55 AM   #25
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genohub View Post
Biggest change is NovaSeq's reduction in space between nanowells, designed to increase cluster density and data output (up to 2-3x more per flow cell than HiSeq X). Notable is the omission of Nextera based exome and Nextera DNA library prep in the initial compatibility line up.

Summarized specs here: https://blog.genohub.com/2017/01/10/...5000-and-6000/
The only information on reagent costs I've seen were referenced on the Omics Omics blog post:

Quote:
The BioIT World piece quotes deSouza saying that NovaSeq would be 20% less expensive per gigabase than HiSeq X, 45% cost savings vs. HiSeq 4000 and 50% vs. HiSeq 2500.
Which seems non-nonsensical to me. HiSeq X and HiSeq 3000/4000 flowcells/chemistry seemed very similar, if not identical, and reagent costs for the HiSeq X chemistry was only a little lower (maybe 20%) than HiSeq 3000/4000 costs.

I didn't do a full cost analysis on the HiSeq 3000/4000 reagent cost per gigabase, but it looked like it was about 1/2 that of a HiSeq 2000.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 08:13 AM   #26
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,236
Default

Okay, here is the actual quote from BioIT:

Quote:
deSouza ran quickly through the comparisons. For a HiSeq 2500 customer, NovaSeq delivers 50% price reduction per Gb; 100% more output per run on the S2 flow cell. For HiSeq 4000 customers, NovaSeq delivers 45% price reduction and 2.5x the output based on the S3 flow cell. For X customers, “NovaSeq will be 20% more economical while delivering three times the throughput.”
So the cost comparison to the HiSeq 2500 is to a NovaSeq S2 flowcell. Whereas the HiSeq 4000 comparison is to a NovaSeq S3 flowcell.

So, if your core can generate enough libraries (dual indexed, I would presume) to make an S3 flowcell run worthwhile, you would generate sequence at 1/4th to 1/3rd the reagent costs of a HiSeq 2500. Even considering the logistical complexities that would entail, it seems like it would be difficult to brush off that kind of a price difference.

I just wish the S1 price per gigabase was going to come in close to that of the S2. But I'm doubting it will.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 07:16 AM   #27
massspecgeek
Junior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 7
Default

I spoke to our Illumina sales rep on the phone yesterday. I was told $30/Gb for S2 100 cycle kits and $15/Gb for 300 cycle. Was also told that 2500 and 3000 are being discontinued effective end of either Q1 or Q2, forgotten which. Our rep hasn't had full briefing yet so I'd be cautious in relying on that, but it's what I've heard so far. Should be getting something in writing this week.
massspecgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 08:25 AM   #28
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by massspecgeek View Post
I spoke to our Illumina sales rep...Was also told that 2500 and 3000 are being discontinued effective end of either Q1 or Q2, forgotten which. Our rep hasn't had full briefing yet so I'd be cautious in relying on that, but it's what I've heard so far. Should be getting something in writing this week.
Ouch... hope that just means selling new ones, rather than maintaining and supplying existing ones.
Brian Bushnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 08:28 AM   #29
massspecgeek
Junior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bushnell View Post
Ouch... hope that just means selling new ones, rather than maintaining and supplying existing ones.
Sorry, should have said that support will continue. Only sales of new instruments affected.
massspecgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 08:29 AM   #30
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,495
Default

Sequencing reagents for GAIIx still appear to be available so those who want to keep using their 2500's should be fine.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 08:33 AM   #31
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by massspecgeek View Post
Sorry, should have said that support will continue. Only sales of new instruments affected.
Taking out HiSeq 2500 would leave a gap in the continuum for "Illumina"verse between NextSeq 550 and HiSeq 4K/NovaSeq 5000.

Perhaps we will see a new sequencer (or two) slot in between there, in future.

Last edited by GenoMax; 01-12-2017 at 08:40 AM.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 05:46 AM   #32
ymc
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 493
Default

Reagent cost is $6375 per flowcell for Hi Seq X. If the price of the new reagent is 80% of Hi Seq X, then it is $5100 per flowcell for NovaSeq 6000.

This means that the new reagent cost is $1.7/Gbp which is a huge drop from the previous $7/Gbp. Correct?
ymc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 08:44 AM   #33
AllSeq
Registered Vendor
 
Location: San Diego, CA

Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 138
Default

I'm pretty sure they meant 80% of the running cost (per Gb), not 80% of the specific kit cost. However, we've still only seen hints at specific pricing, so we can't say for sure.
__________________
AllSeq - The Sequencing Marketplace
[email protected]
www.AllSeq.com
AllSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2017, 06:42 PM   #34
ymc
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllSeq View Post
I'm pretty sure they meant 80% of the running cost (per Gb), not 80% of the specific kit cost. However, we've still only seen hints at specific pricing, so we can't say for sure.
Thanks for your reply.

Then from the cost perspective, it is not that impressive.

Big jump is throughput is always welcomed by the big genome centers. However, if base accuracy is down due to the new chemistry, then that won't even be a plus.

Anyway, I think we need to wait a little bit more to assess this new toy.
ymc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2017, 11:38 AM   #35
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,236
Default

Yeah, if you already have a HiSeq X then the only major advantage is that there are no library type limitations on the NovaSeq.
What NovaSeq does is offer the average core a shot at a price per base previously only available to those with the throughput to need 5+ HiSeq X.
That said, you would need to run S4 reagents to get that price per base and:
(1) S4 won't be ready until late 2017
(2) It will generate 3 Tb of data in a single run == a single lane (logically, if not physically).

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2017, 09:24 AM   #36
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,495
Default

Added some information from webinar to the original post.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 02:21 PM   #37
misterc
Member
 
Location: Livermore, CA

Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 20
Default

Couple things that have changed on this lately.

1 - S4 flow cells now slated to ship in Q3 this year.
2 - S4 reagent kits only being reduced to be 20% cheaper than HiSeq X if you buy 5 NovaSeq instruments. Bleh. Still about half the cost per Gb versus HiSeq 4000.
misterc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 05:50 PM   #38
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,695
Default

I did a comparison of duplicate rates on HiSeq2500 and NovaSeq, using Illumina's public data on BaseSpace:



NovaSeq seems to have a problem, but it's not clear why. These are not normal optical/well duplicates; they are extremely remote. It looks like during colony formation, some reads break off and reattach to an empty well somewhere else. The farthest-right point (at 25000) is not for distance 25000 but for distance infinity, including inter-tile duplicates.

These libraries are PCR-free WGS and thus should not really have more than a tiny fraction of duplicates, as seen on the HiSeq. Does anyone have any idea what's causing this? Does my hypothesis sound reasonable? Previous Illumina platforms had a very obvious distance cutoff where the number of duplicates increases rapidly up to a point, then plateaus (which is true for this HiSeq data, at around dist=45, but you can't see it in this graph). That is not the case for NovaSeq - it just keeps ascending, and there is no clear cutoff. It gradually bends, so there is no clear inflection point like there is on other platforms.

For reference, the libraries are both human NA12878 runs. NovaSeq is 2x150 and HiSeq 2500 is 2x100. Pairs are considered duplicates when the distance between colony centers is at most the stated distance, and both R1 and R2 match with some number of substitutions allowed, to account for sequencing error (8 for 150bp reads and 5 for 100bp reads). The insert sizes are quite large on average (>500bp) which reduces the rate of coincidental duplicates. HS2500 is ~10x and NovaSeq is ~30x coverage so the coincidental duplicate rate should be extremely low in both cases.

P.S. This is an underestimate of the duplicate rate for both platforms, as it was generated in a way that is not robust to sequencing error. I will regenerate the data, but it won't change the discrepancy, just the magnitude.
Attached Images
File Type: png NovaSeq_Duplicates.png (34.0 KB, 149 views)

Last edited by Brian Bushnell; 03-01-2017 at 06:43 PM.
Brian Bushnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 09:44 PM   #39
SNPsaurus
Registered Vendor
 
Location: Eugene, OR

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 416
Default

Was there a higher phiX concentration in the NovaSeq run? Wouldn't phiX produce pseudo-duplicates given the small genome, especially if library prep had a biased fragmentation?

I agree with your "fragment break-off" possibility. We were just chatting about that idea recently over here regarding the HiSeq4000.
__________________
Providing nextRAD genotyping services. http://snpsaurus.com
SNPsaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:05 PM   #40
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,695
Default

There was zero PhiX in the Novaseq data. I was wondering a bit about mitochondrial content, but still, the source DNA is the same for both platforms. Anyway, coincidental duplicates won't follow the pattern in the graph, of a curve with a negative derivative. They would cause a positive derivative because the number of potential matches increases with the square of the radius, so random matches would yield a curve that looks like Y=X^2, whereas the curve I plotted looks like... nothing with which I am familiar.

Edit:

Or, maybe, I should say it looks a bit like a step function plus a linear, or square-root, or X^Y function where Y is between 0.5 and 1. The step function has a steep increase until a point (say, 2500 for NovaSeq), which models "traditional" optical- or well-duplicates. The other function models "drifters" that break off and land in remote wells.

Last edited by Brian Bushnell; 03-01-2017 at 10:18 PM.
Brian Bushnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
illumina, novaseq

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 08:01 PM.


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