Tweet
thanks in advance for answering
-
-
When we started sequencing on the HiSeq2000 (september 2010), we had to perform 36nt run to be able to compare Hiseq2000 experiments and GAIIx experiments (read number is an issue but it's another subject).
It worked well and we didn't face any problem (in my memories) with the 2*72nt paired end run we performed with the remaining reagents. -
Merci beaucoup!
I was recommended not to devide the 200 cycle into so many parts.
Originally posted by huguesparri View PostComment
-
Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
-
I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.
Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
Comment