Based on some feedback and advice:This based on shelf registrations and they might or might now use. My point they are thinking about this which is good indicator and company is feeling confident to move up...
And most are RS II
Top Organisms [Tree]
Plasmodium falciparum (5550)
Listeria monocytogenes (6)
Escherichia coli (3)
Neurospora crassa (2)
All other taxa (19)
Here is some summary from data bank search, and most are from RS II, and total 7286 publications. And you know big pharmas' never discloses their lab information or submits data.
Total from PacBio RS I and RS II
Plasmodium falciparum (5700)
Melopsittacus undulatus (155)
Escherichia coli (141)
Vibrio cholerae (124)
#$%$ sapiens (123)
human metagenome (76)
Rhodobacter sphaeroides 2.4.1 (49)
Klebsiella pneumoniae (46)
Enterobacter cloacae (32)
Staphylococcus aureus (28)
Loa loa (25)
Human immunodeficiency virus 1 (25)
Candidatus Rickettsia amblyommii str. Ac37 (21)
Listeria monocytogenes (17)
Orientia tsutsugamushi str. Sido (16)
Salmonella enterica (14)
Coprobacillus sp. D6 (14)
Burkholderia pseudomallei (13)
Salmo salar (12)
All other taxa (638)
PACB might raise $150,000,000 based on S-3 SEC filling on Nov 5,2014. I think they might do this after Q4 result because based on orders so far they might have exceptional Q4 result.
UC Davis completely switched to Pacbio for all bacterial assemblies. HLI is finishing all genomes using PacBio. Look at GenBank for all completed genomes using Pacbio.
#1 To be precise; 7 order in Q2 and 16 orders in Q3. I was referring to yearly exponential grown from 2013 to 2014.
#2 Pacbio will beat Illumina is any analysis including denovo assembly, SNP and INDEL analysis, base modification,except cost. If you consider the advantage of WGS sequencing for personalized medicine, Pacbio will always be winner.
I agree with j.mo.
I want to know what PacBio is working on with Roche. Is it small diagnostic sequencer? Or It's just streamed pipeline for diagnostic application?
I think PacBio will release small sequencer in 2015 as they increase the throughput, and that will also accelerate adoption of PacBio technology, and I think small sequencer will also be required for diagnostic applications
It started as compliment due to cost, but I already see researchers are switching to PacBio. In Personalized genome sequencing and medicine, you need accurate information, not cheap genome.
I just want to make few observations related to PacBio:
1. Orders are growing exponentially as PacBio receives multiple sequencers order from large sequencing centers and sequencing providers.
2. PacBio is nowhere close to Illumina sequencers volume but sequencing quality is so good that PacBio will win any comparison in sequencing and analysis.
3. PacBio cost is higher than Illumina but researchers are saving time and compute resources on analysis, and getting best genome insight that were not available before.
4. I THINK Pacbio will become foundation for Personalized genome sequencing and medicine.
5. PacBio vs. Nanopore: Nanopore looks promising on paper but still not ready for prime time.
6. PacBio vs. Illumina: Illumina is major sequencing workhorse but tide might be turning in PacBio favor.
Let me know what do you folks think or provide your feedback...
Roche already has agreement for some diagnostic device. If they hit all milestones then it'll be different story. Ilumina is late to Long read party...
I don't believe in chart pattern...I believe in need for the industry, company product, customer engagement and how happy the customers are...
Where you got the number of $1K? Have you tried to do de-novo assembly of Human Illumina data?
Illumina is the winner but PacBio is the future and gaining momentum every month.
I agree that Nanopore's technology pose a competitive threat because of cost, but Nanopore is at least 3 years behind the curve and you can't even find any published data. One of the biggest challenges is electronic noise. The electric current changes in the nanopore are in the range of 25 to 50 pA (25 - 50 x 10-9 A) and that is for the difference between having the nanopore empty or having DNA passing through it. Imagine how difficult it is to differentiate one base from the next! Unless they resolve the issue they are not going anywhere soon...
Read correction and some of algorithm are very specific to their platform because they use their pulse detection between signals. Pacbio run is expensive compared to Illumina but P5 DNA polymerase with C3 chemistry (P5-C3) they already doubled the capacity and I think it might move further is that direction. In Human clinical space you need most accurate genome, not the cheapest...
Illumina has accurate but short reads, even with moleculo technology. Pacbio has error prone long reads (10-20kb), but pacbio errors are random, which can be corrected easily based on coverage (that what CCS reads is). With correct long read, Pacbio gives accurate and long reads which provides best coverage for the genomes for assembly or any analysis ( RNASeq, CHIPSeq, BaseModification). In personalized genome analysis and therapy, any doctor prefers most accurate assembled genome, not just read. In long run PacBio will win (already i see sign of Pacbio winning Illumina X-ten customers) customers from Illumina, just wait and watch...
This is my opinion, and I have been working with sequencing data over 17 years...
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. Reports Q3 EPS of $(0.13) vs $(0.20) Est; Revenue of $20.60M vs $14.68M Est