I recently attended the IBC Rx/Dx Summits held in San Francisco in the first week of August 2012. The meeting was held at the Westin San Francisco Market Street Hotel. I was attracted to this event because it gave me the opportunity to learn about some of the new emerging market dynamics in next generation sequencing (NGS) and other areas that I track for my firm.
I listened to a talk comparing desktop sequencing systems by Jason Lih, Ph.D., Principal Scientist, SAIC-Frederick. His talk was called Assay Development for Detecting Somatic Mutations in Cancer by Targeted Amplicon Sequencing: A Technical Comparison between PGM and MiSeq.
Dr. Lih’s talk compared two desktop NGS machines, the Life Technologies, Ion Torrent, PGM with the Illumina MiSeq. At the beginning of his discussion, he said that he would not say which NGS platform is better.
In his NGS application, he used targeted amplicon sequencing to develop assays to detect somatic mutations in cancer. Jason said that the PGM used AmpliSeq v. Illumina’s TruSeq Custom Amplicon (TSCA) technology. He said that Life’s PGM requires just 20 ng of DNA sample, whereas the Illumina MiSeq requires 250 ng of DNA sample. The Life PGM uses a 4-plex #‘316’ chip which outputs 1×200 base pairs of bi-directional sequence in one day plus 4 hours. (or 28 hrs). The MiSeq takes 27 hrs (or 1 hr. less).
Using a comparison concept that he called the “Cosmic” MOI (Molecule Of Interest), he created a comparison chart comparing 1160 Cosmic MOIs. He compared both vendor’s reagents. His results showed that the PGM produced slightly more MOIs.
|Vendor Model||Reagents||MOIs||DNA Sample||Run Time||QScore|
The PGM variant caller was the Ampliseq Reporter. He used a 3rd party software from CLC Bio. The CLC Bio Integrated Genome Viewer showed a Qscore of 30 for each NGS machine.
What is interesting to me is that at end of his talk during the Q&A, an attendee asked Jason for his opinion about which was the best of the two NGS machines that he compared. He said that his comparison was not intended to find the “best” NGS machine. My take away from his answer was that as far as Jason’s application was concerned, one could use either NGS machine and get comparable/ usable research data. Also of note is that Roche Applied Systems demonstrated their 454 GS Junior desktop sequencer at the exhibit hall. I wonder how the 454 GS Junior would compare against the PGM and MiSeq machines.
During the lunch- networking break in the exhibit hall, I met Robert Klein, Ph.D., Chief Business Development Officer, Complete Genomics, Inc. who said that he was giving a talk later in the day. I attended his talk called: Large-scale, Accurate Whole Genome Sequencing to Enable Genomic Medicine.
Robert gave a update on the business direction or activities at Complete Genomics (CG). He said that CG v.1 was about research sequencing and that CG v.2 is more about clinical sequencing. Dr. Klein said that in 2006 CG developed its proprietary sequencing technology and service model. By 2011 they had delivered 3,000 genomes to customers. Robert said that CG now produces 1,000 genomes per month. He explained that they have a DNA factory in Mountain View and sends the data to its data center in the nearby city of Santa Clara. CG does this because Santa Clara offers a lower cost for electricity. CG provides “research ready” data to the customer and the customer analyzes the data.
Robert highlighted CG’s goals as including: Setup a CLIA facility 2H’12, Scale-up quality, Scale down cost, Scale-up throughput and Offering ‘clinical use’ sequencing. CG will be focusing on new apps. including Idiopathic kids, Refractory cancers, Replacing cytogenetic arrays and Replacing targeted panels. Dr. Klein also added that CG is interested in Wellness/ concierge medicine and Reproductive genetics. He mentioned that CG is exploring other market spaces such as Prenatal screening, Newborn screening, and Reproduction Issues. Dr. Klein predicted that the first areas that whole genome (clinical) sequencing would show clinical utility would be in studies of copy number, neuroblastomas and translocations. Robert said that NGS will likely democratize genomic medicine.
Several speakers echoed TGEN’s David Craig, Ph.D., Deputy Director for Bioinformatics and Professor of Neurogenomics, comment that “the cost of NGS went up in 2011 because the analysis bottleneck is the culprit.” My take on that is that in clinical NGS, the all-in $1,000 genome might be postponed to beyond 2014 by perhaps a few more years.