Automated Library Prep Instruments

kzarn · 05-23-2014, 10:56 AM

I'm looking for input on Wafergen's Apollo 324 and Perkin Elmer's NGS Express.

If you have (or have used) one, do you like it? Are there any limitations that are difficult to overcome?

Has anyone had a chance to use both? Which do you prefer and why?

Has anyone used P-Suite to modify or design scripts for the Apollo 324? (How easy or difficult is this?)

Does anyone with an Apollo 324 use Illumina or KAPA library prep kits?

Thanks so much for reading, and thanks for your response(s)!

bbeitzel · 05-23-2014, 12:00 PM

We have a couple Apollo 324s, and I think all of the people in the lab really like them. We also have a Caliper SciClone, but the Apollo is much more user friendly than that (IMHO.)

One of the things I like about the Apollo is that it is very easy to update. Our FSR comes out and swaps out a memory card (which you could also do yourself), and that is all it takes. I seems like whenever we need to add a new protocol to one of our Caliper instruments, they have to send a FSR out for several days to custom write a new protocol.

We have not used P-suite, but I have considered purchasing it to automate some of my other protocols. Maybe someday...

We use the IntegenX (now Wafergen) reagents with the Apollo, and they work well. They used to be significantly cheaper than the reagents from Illumina and Roche, but I'm not sure if that is still the case. They come already aliquoted into strips to load into the instrument, and they give us good results. I'm not sure it would be worth it to have to set up tubes / plates of Illumina or Kapa reagents to run those on the Apollo.

kzarn · 05-23-2014, 01:57 PM

Thanks for your response, bbeitzel!

Out of curiosity, why did you decide against purchasing P-Suite (assuming you had funds available)?

In your opinion, are there any other benefits of the Apollo over the SciClone besides user-friendliness?

bbeitzel · 05-27-2014, 09:37 AM

I think that we were a fairly early adopter of the Apollo, and at the time they weren't really pushing P-Suite. The main use for us is for library preps, and they already have protocols for most of the things that we are doing. IntegenX seemed to be pretty quick to come out with protocols when new technologies became available, and hopefully Wafergen will continue that trend.

Another benefit of the Apollo over the SciClone is that you can run small numbers of samples, down to a single sample if needed. We have found that the SciClone is only cost-effective if you are preparing batches of libraries with at least 24 samples or so.

Also, the Illumina protocol for the Apollo does both a high and a low size bead cut to give you your final library. The SciClone protocol may have changed, but IIRC it used to just do a low size cut (if any.) Again, since it seems like Caliper has to custom write every protocol, maybe some SciClone users have Illumina protocols that do double cuts.

ianakiev · 10-10-2015, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbeitzel

We have a couple Apollo 324s, and I think all of the people in the lab really like them. We also have a Caliper SciClone, but the Apollo is much more user friendly than that (IMHO.)

One of the things I like about the Apollo is that it is very easy to update. Our FSR comes out and swaps out a memory card (which you could also do yourself), and that is all it takes. I seems like whenever we need to add a new protocol to one of our Caliper instruments, they have to send a FSR out for several days to custom write a new protocol.

We have not used P-suite, but I have considered purchasing it to automate some of my other protocols. Maybe someday...

We use the IntegenX (now Wafergen) reagents with the Apollo, and they work well. They used to be significantly cheaper than the reagents from Illumina and Roche, but I'm not sure if that is still the case. They come already aliquoted into strips to load into the instrument, and they give us good results. I'm not sure it would be worth it to have to set up tubes / plates of Illumina or Kapa reagents to run those on the Apollo.

I have IntegenX Apollo 324 instrument, however I am not sure how to update scripts on it? P-suite experience anyone>?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
automated library prep for mRNA	eab	Sample Prep / Library Generation	2	08-05-2013 08:15 AM
Automated library prep	genbio64	Core Facilities	1	10-01-2012 06:41 AM
Ion Torrent Library Prep fully automated on SPRIworks SPRI-TE system	Ber7702	Vendor Forum	5	03-19-2012 06:46 AM
Automated library prep	bbeitzel	Sample Prep / Library Generation	0	07-11-2011 08:03 AM
Caliper automated sample prep	ElTony	Sample Prep / Library Generation	1	01-31-2011 09:33 AM

05-23-2014, 10:56 AM	#1
kzarn Member Location: Missoula, MT Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 19	Automated Library Prep Instruments I'm looking for input on Wafergen's Apollo 324 and Perkin Elmer's NGS Express. If you have (or have used) one, do you like it? Are there any limitations that are difficult to overcome? Has anyone had a chance to use both? Which do you prefer and why? Has anyone used P-Suite to modify or design scripts for the Apollo 324? (How easy or difficult is this?) Does anyone with an Apollo 324 use Illumina or KAPA library prep kits? Thanks so much for reading, and thanks for your response(s)!

05-23-2014, 12:00 PM	#2
bbeitzel Member Location: Ft. Detrick, MD Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 50	We have a couple Apollo 324s, and I think all of the people in the lab really like them. We also have a Caliper SciClone, but the Apollo is much more user friendly than that (IMHO.) One of the things I like about the Apollo is that it is very easy to update. Our FSR comes out and swaps out a memory card (which you could also do yourself), and that is all it takes. I seems like whenever we need to add a new protocol to one of our Caliper instruments, they have to send a FSR out for several days to custom write a new protocol. We have not used P-suite, but I have considered purchasing it to automate some of my other protocols. Maybe someday... We use the IntegenX (now Wafergen) reagents with the Apollo, and they work well. They used to be significantly cheaper than the reagents from Illumina and Roche, but I'm not sure if that is still the case. They come already aliquoted into strips to load into the instrument, and they give us good results. I'm not sure it would be worth it to have to set up tubes / plates of Illumina or Kapa reagents to run those on the Apollo.

05-23-2014, 01:57 PM	#3
kzarn Member Location: Missoula, MT Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 19	Thanks for your response, bbeitzel! Out of curiosity, why did you decide against purchasing P-Suite (assuming you had funds available)? In your opinion, are there any other benefits of the Apollo over the SciClone besides user-friendliness?

05-27-2014, 09:37 AM	#4
bbeitzel Member Location: Ft. Detrick, MD Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 50	I think that we were a fairly early adopter of the Apollo, and at the time they weren't really pushing P-Suite. The main use for us is for library preps, and they already have protocols for most of the things that we are doing. IntegenX seemed to be pretty quick to come out with protocols when new technologies became available, and hopefully Wafergen will continue that trend. Another benefit of the Apollo over the SciClone is that you can run small numbers of samples, down to a single sample if needed. We have found that the SciClone is only cost-effective if you are preparing batches of libraries with at least 24 samples or so. Also, the Illumina protocol for the Apollo does both a high and a low size bead cut to give you your final library. The SciClone protocol may have changed, but IIRC it used to just do a low size cut (if any.) Again, since it seems like Caliper has to custom write every protocol, maybe some SciClone users have Illumina protocols that do double cuts.