Those who follow my account for a while will already know that I've been following the field of Next Generation Sequencing for many years now, and I keep a series of resources comparing different platforms and technologies.
Beyond the first tier of 4-5 large NGS companies out there, such as Illumina, PacBio, Oxford Nanopore, Thermo's Ion Torrents and MGI Tech, there is now a growing group of small companies pinning for an NGS market which is growing and maturing in many ways.
I keep a table comparing these companies, with around 40 different ones, although some of them have a small chance of making it into the market, and they may be acquired by someone else to expand their technological capabilities. bit.ly/nngseq
In order of the ones that are ready for the market, we can list GenapSys (low CAPEX instruments with a technology similar to the Ion Torrent sequencing method), Singular Genomics (the G4 short-read instrument is about to go full commercial), ...
... Omniome (sequence by binding short-read technology acquired by PacBio), Element Biosciences which doesn't have a product described but the hiring rate indicates this could happen soon, Centrillion Biosciences (array technology) DNAe, Roswell Bio, GeneMind Bio, etc.
In all the ones enumerated above, there is still a relatively clean split between short reads and long reads. Illumina dominates the short-read market but will be challenged by the MGI Tech offerings soon, now that the IP barriers are about to come down.
There is another group of 3-4 challengers in the short-read market, which will remain in one shape or another as long as cheap 166bp reads are important, i.e. cfDNA liquid biopsy applications. Then there is a group of entrants where read length will be less of a constraint.
Maybe some of these will become "read length agnostic", in the sense that they will be able to produce good quality affordable reads regardless of the fragment length. Oxford Nanopore has shown the way here by being able to produce 150M short reads in their Promethion flowcells.
All in all, quite a lot to keep an eye on for the next few months (AGBT is scheduled for June 2022 now).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.