Talk:DNA sequencer

Untitled
Okay, not only is this too technical, but it also really needs to be expanded. At least a brief explaination of the process would be nice. Nathanww 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have some sources that may have something that could be used. I'll start looking. jim.amen 11:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a little paragraph but there is a large amount left out. I wonder if heavy linking to the DNA Sequencing description would be useful since you really need to understand one to understand the other. jim.amen 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

needs to tell how long sequencing takes
around 2000, sequencing human DNA took years and was a big deal. How long does it take now? Please omit qualifiers like the ones in the present article ("it still needs to go through process X") -- Dr. Tony Roberts, but I don't remember my login name or pw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.163.72 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions
This article as it stands needs a lot of work. There are now several different sequencing technologies available and this article seems to be written as if we were still in the age of capillary sequencing. I think it would be useful to include some of the following sections:


 * History of sequencing machines - which would cover the various companies and machines that they released with some indications of their underlying technologie and capacities (could be expressed as a table).
 * Growth of sequencing capacity - includes some discussion of the growth in DNA sequence data enabled by sequencing machines
 * Technologies in development - It would be useful to point to some of the upcoming technologies that do not yet have production machines available.

Alexbateman (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article on DNA sequencing looks much more developed and covers similar ground to my suggestions above. Should we consider merging this article into that one?  Perhaps by adding a  historical perspective on the development of sequencing machines to that article. Alexbateman (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The two are obviously related subjects, though to me it would make more sense to discuss the science and reasoning behind DNA sequencing itself at DNA sequencing and to leave this article open for discussion of the actual machines performing it. So, as in the table above, I'd place the first item in DNA sequencer and the other two in DNA sequencing. §everal⇒|Times 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparison Table
I suggest updating the comparison table. I am drafting the update here. --Hdash (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Reference: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2012/251364/ Data that is probably out of date is in bold. --Hdash (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good - the costs are always a moving target so perhaps it's best to remove that part of the table entirely and provide the cost per Mb as a range. §everal⇒|Times 13:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

History needs a little expansion
The ABI 370A could not sequence 96 bases early on. It was 24 lanes at the beginning expanding to 36. It was the 377 that went to 96. And what about the Dupont Genesis? First box with dye terminator before ABI bought the patents from them. Licor is forgotten as well as that box that was attached to a NeXT Cube. I liked the computer, completely forget the name of the sequencer. I think it was luciferase one dye technology.

For time to sequence: 24 lane 370A with new dye terminator could get about 350 bases per lane on a good day. 24x350 in one day. (That's only if you washed your plates correctly.) MBCF (talk)