Hacker News Reader

Comment by eggie | Hacker News Reader

I expect us to use the long reads from ONT and PacBio to discover that structural variation is even more important and common than previously appreciated. If that's the case, you'd be silly to use the Illumina technology for anything more complex than population genetics, and this will probably trickle into many parts of the market as the medically-relevant parts of the field realize what the basic science is demonstrating.

View on HN

The fact is, unfortunately, that Nanopore sequencing (and also, from what I’ve read, PacBio) has a dramatically higher error rate than Illumina sequencing-by-synthesis. In the near future, anyway, I would expect to see inaccurate PacBio/Nanopore long reads being used as scaffolds for accurate Illumina short reads (in fact, this is already happening). Illumina won’t be going anywhere any time soon.

>The fact is, unfortunately, that Nanopore sequencing (and also, from what I’ve read, PacBio) has a dramatically higher error rate than Illumina sequencing-by-synthesis.

This is true, but only for Insertions/Deletions. The substitution error rate is comparable to Hi-Seq.

So it's good for resequencing but without a reference or decent scaffolds, you're in the dark.

I've only sequenced a few samples on a MinION. The dominant error seemed to be miscounting the length of a homopolymer stretch (e.g. CCC->CCCCC) but the substitution error rate was also clearly worse than Illumina. I've gotten used to less than 0.1% error from DNA sequencing on a HiSeq 2500. My guess is that the MinION data had 1-3% substitution errors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com