1) I remember Jonathan Rothberg tweeting (or should we say X'ing?) for LLM experts to apply to 454 Bio. The impression I came away with was that it was more of a QuantumSi type of approach applied to DNA, rather than Lasergen. On that note, why did Agilent kill Lasergen anyway? In their papers Lasergen mention UV damage, could that be a factor?
2) If you have a 200nm depth TIRF and a 1um square pixel, you have a volume of ~0.2fL. If your nucleotides are at 1uM, then you'll have 2*10^-22 moles or about 120 nucleotides in the illuminated volume. So there will be a good deal of background. I guess that's where PacBio's ZMWs come in handy.
3) What kind of throughput would be feasible with this method? PacBio, which is somewhat similar, also has a throughput problem...
Difficult to know what else they might be doing (particularly in the LLM direction). It's also a 200+ page patent I mostly looked at the abstract/examples and figures. So could be a lot of other stuff hiding in there!
Thanks for the writeup Nava. Some thoughts:
1) I remember Jonathan Rothberg tweeting (or should we say X'ing?) for LLM experts to apply to 454 Bio. The impression I came away with was that it was more of a QuantumSi type of approach applied to DNA, rather than Lasergen. On that note, why did Agilent kill Lasergen anyway? In their papers Lasergen mention UV damage, could that be a factor?
2) If you have a 200nm depth TIRF and a 1um square pixel, you have a volume of ~0.2fL. If your nucleotides are at 1uM, then you'll have 2*10^-22 moles or about 120 nucleotides in the illuminated volume. So there will be a good deal of background. I guess that's where PacBio's ZMWs come in handy.
3) What kind of throughput would be feasible with this method? PacBio, which is somewhat similar, also has a throughput problem...
Difficult to know what else they might be doing (particularly in the LLM direction). It's also a 200+ page patent I mostly looked at the abstract/examples and figures. So could be a lot of other stuff hiding in there!