So after Oxford @nanopore's #NCM21 tech dev presentation, where does this leave ONT technology in comparison of Illumina? (thread)
The ONT technology offers a lower barrier to entry with the MinION, and this results in a competitive advantage over turn-around time sensitive applications (Point of Care settings).
ONT showed their competitiveness in both long-read and short-read applications yesterday, a limitation for Illumina which tried to overcome with their failed attempt to acquire PacBio.
Overall, all applications benefit from longer reads, except Liquid Biopsy cfDNA, where the fragments are of an average 166bp. So a long-read technology gives better completeness and haplotypic information in a native form.
In terms of pricing, ONT announced their PromethION flowcell can now achieve a $1000 genome, including their P2 kits. There is a range here, as depending on the sample type and volume, we can probably talk of around $3500-500 range. Illumina is in a similar range but ...
... has more experience in delivering short-read $600 genomes in their NovaSeq platform. The NextSeq 2000 is probably closer to $1200 and anything smaller is in the $2000-5000 range.
The NCM21 presentation by ONT gives us a current state-of-the-art timepoint in terms of accuracy: Q20+ for simplex reads, and near Q30 for duplex, with a current efficiency of around 30-40% (to be released in 2022). Illumina has been in the 80-85% of reads at Q30+ for a while.
In some applications, the inflection point is already at Q20 level: the improvements of ONT's kit12 demonstrate that there isn't much more left to achieve for SNP and Indel calling. Same for consensus assembly of microbial genomes, now at QV50 for 20x coverage.
For other applications, until most of the reads are at Q30, Illumina will still have an advantage. ONT showed their "adaptive sampling + adaptive accuracy" concept, which could be in commercial shape in a year or two (?), which would in my opinion close the gap almost completely.
Final open question: do you think Oxford Nanopore will overtake Illumina in terms of sequencing market share, revenue, etc. in the next ten years? Difficult to say, in my opinion, but there is definitely a path for Illumina to move into Diagnostics (Grail Bio, NIPT) and ...
... with that, give up a significant chunk of their market share of their current instrument+reagents market.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Clive (probably sipping a piña colada by the beach) is updating on tech at @NanoporeConf@nanopore
Three steps: (1) Sample Preparation, (2) Data Acquisition and (3) Sequence Data (basecalling)
"[...] everything apart from the computer is designed by Nanopore, but [the computer side] may change in the future, by the way". Unreasonable to think they will build their own silicon specialized for base-calling?
Their DNBSEQ-Tx sequencing factory, with dip-immersion reagent delivery and 4 high-throughput imagers, can produce >50K WGS annually. Technology being upgraded from PE100 to PE150 (2021Q3)
A presentation from a user shows how #singlecell 10X Genomics libraries can be inputted into the MGI machines. Small difference between FASTQ files, but tools available to transform.
More highlights of the prospectus for $ONT.L Oxford @nanopore, now concentrating on more technical aspects.
Aiming for a 4-5x step change in throughput between the different product lines: 126/512 ~ 4x and 512/2675 ~ 5x between Flongle / MinION / PromethION
There are a lots of other details that matter here, but it gives us a rough estimate of multiples between product throughput and how the company thinks about them. Compared to Illumina, their MiSeq/NextSeq/NovaSeq ratios are:
15/360 ~ 24x and 360/6000 ~ 16x, but with ...
Gross Margin of 30% is a single number encompassing a lot of different costs inside. My first guess is that the ASICs part of the technology has a lot of margin in volume and alternatives.a
Also, a starter pack can be more costly as it contains added elements that are helpful for starting customers, but it slims down to basics for regular customers.
Finally, and this is pure speculative territory, the tech slide of the flexible small-printer ASIC POC shows a path forward to make Oxford @nanopore independent from large suppliers of semiconductor materials produced by large specialised FABs.
A few notes (in no particular order) on the Oxford @nanopore 30-Sep-2021 document timed for their IPO (data.fca.org.uk/artefacts/NSM/…) (1) The importance of GPUs and SSDs as part of the computational equipment perceived to be needed now and in the near/mid term future
They only mention competitors by name in stating the difference between synthesis-based sequencing and the nanopore approach. They mention Illumina and PacBio later on in patent litigation risks but not too interesting.
Their TAM and potential TAM slide is probably the most insightful: reiterating what the company always said about long-reads, ubiquitous and fast TAT products and the markets they can disrupt with these
In #biotech#stocks, more market jitters at NASDAQ opening, all biotech stocks down except for $ONT.L Oxford @nanopore and $NEO NeoGenomics
$ONT.L Oxford @nanopore floated on Wednesday, today still on a steady uphill. Trades in London stock exchange, so off by 4-5 hours US East time.
$NEO NeoGenomics has been on a tear in the last few days. A company growing both organically and by acquisition, aggressively positioning itself in the #LiquidBiopsy#CancerScreening segment.