A complaint which seems
to be circulating on Twitter and elsewhere is that this year’s AGBT conference
on Marco Island next week doesn’t look like it will have any excitement around
new platforms. AGBT has been a traditional coming out party for
platforms. Last year it was Oxford Nanopore which created a huge buzz,
and in previous years that crown has been held by Ion Torrent, Pacific
Biosciences, Complete Genomics and others (including a few which seem to have
gone kaput).
It is hard to argue that
this year’s program is much more heavily tilted towards applications of
genomics than novel genomic technologies. Many of the genomic technology
talks are updates on the evolution of existing platforms such as PacBio and
Illumina (especially the Moleculo technology). But, there will also be
novel technologies.
This past fall I had the
pleasure of spending half a day with the folks at Nabsys, located a short
distance from Boston in Providence RI. Nabsys’s buildings are in a sea of
drab parking lots (not to mention sheriff’s cars; a courthouse is nearby), but
on the interior were quite pleasant. I was largely wearing my “day job”
hat that day, but Nabsys will be unveiling their instrument at AGBT and has
given me permission to talk about what I saw (and reviewed what I've written to make sure I didn't make some dumb errors, though the content is all mine). Of course, I will update
this after I look some more at AGBT.
It is worth noting that
if Nabsys can remain on track for commercialization, with a beta program
imminent and commercial launch late in the year, then they are likely to
deliver the first molecular biological analytic device relying on an
electronic, single-molecule detector. While a lot of excitement has been
focused on nanopore companies such as Oxford Nanopore and Genia (and others), perhaps it
is the difference in goals which has enabled Nabsys to approach the finish line
sooner. Rather than attempting to actually sequence DNA, Nabsys is
promising “Positional Sequencing”, which really means precisely measuring the
distance between predictable landmarks on DNA.
Positional sequencing is in some ways provides
similar information to the optical mapping systems of OpGen and BioNano
Genomics, but with two important twists. First, by employing electronic
rather than optical detection, Nabsys can obtain much more accurate measurements
of position. Second, while the optical mapping companies need nucleases to
define their landmarks, Nabsys’ are defined by oligonucleotide probes, and
hence the resolution of a map can be tuned by tuning the complexity of that
probe pool. Ultimately, the goals is to zoom all the way down to
individual nucleotides (effectively), but this ability to dial the resolution
means that Nabsys can follow a classic “disruptive innovation” trajectory:
deliver a tool that is initially useful, inexpensive but perhaps a little
crude. But, a clear path to performance improvement exists. A
challenge, of course, is whether Nabsys can carve out a foothold, and drive to
that final resolution, with the spectre of one of the straight nanopore sequencing
companies bringing their product to market.
The initial focus
application for such a device will be small genome scaffolding (a topic VERY
dear to my heart). This has been a key market for OpGen and likely one
for BioNano. A key difference is that these systems cost many fold more
than the approximately $50K proposed for the Nabsys box. An obvious
future market is structural variation mapping, though one challenge is that
some of the most exciting places to apply such analysis are cancer samples,
which too often have been through the harsh formalin fixation process (and
embedding in paraffin wax) which tends to shred DNA into tiny pieces.
As with any new
technology, a key question will be “when doesn’t it work?”. Large
single-stranded DNAs are something to make many people nervous, as complex
secondary structures could form. If these interfere with probe binding or
passage of the DNA through the detector, then that could be a serious problem. The sensitivity of the system to
DNA purity will be another important parameter; recent in house work has
illustrated the challenge of routinely generating very high molecular weight DNA
(think 100s of kilobases or more) free of cellular debris, particularly if the
menagerie you are trying to characterize are phylogenetically diverse.
Human samples can similarly be challenging.
Sorry but I can't see how this can compete with single molecule nanopore sequencing at any time
ReplyDeleteThanks Keith, illuminating as always. "When doesn't is work" is always a useful question. My question would be what projects would this first iteration be useful for? My guess would be de novo assembly of our favorite animals Streptomyces and e. coli. I still marvel at how all current technologies have such an inability to spit out one contig with the depth and length of fragments available. This little box could help scaffold them.
ReplyDeleteHeres another one. Say you know there is a certain genomic arrangement that brings death and destruction. A bar code reading the hardened spaghetti of this awful bacteria or virus could be read by Nabsys.
I guess I can wait a couple of days before I seek answers to a bunch more dumb questions that are coming to mind.
As for Anonymous' question, my response would be, "have you seen one nucleotide from single molecule nanopore?" I hope we see some soon and they are not all CACA.
Keith, great post! You have a talent for getting the exclusive look at things. I look forward to hearing what Nabsys shows off at AGBT.
ReplyDeleteHi Paul,
ReplyDeleteYes, and on this blog site
http://omicsomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/oxford-nanopore-doesnt-disappoint.html
No Anon, I read that post a year ago. Great post. But I am still waiting for a few nucleotides of data.
ReplyDeleteAnon: Yes, I've acknowledged being excessively exuberant about Oxford Nanopore last year. Given their pedigree, they certainly can't be reduced only to the butt of silly jokes about their one product's name (not that I don't frequently do so on Twitter).
ReplyDeleteStill, as Paul points out, until nanopores start generating data & we can really pit systems head-to-head with all the various scenarios, there aren't clear winners and especially not clear take-outs.