Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Many writers have attempted to divide Next Generation Sequencing into Second Generation Sequencing and Third Generation Sequencing. Personally, I think it isn't helpful and just confuses matters. I'm not the biggest fan of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) to start with, as like "post-modern architecture" (or heck, "modern architecture") it isn't future-proofed. Not that I wouldn't take a job with NGS in the title, but still not a favorite. High Throughput Sequencing feels a little better, but again doesn't leave room for distinguishing growth -- and HTS as an abbreviation is already going to confuse anyone in Biopharma who thinks about High Throughput Screening. Massively Parallel Sequencing sort of works, but my late father had a real pedantic objection to using "massive" for anything that lacked mass, and while I don't subscribe to that view such uses just don't sit well with me. Worse, as I'll explain, trying to divide sequencer technologies into Second and Third generations creates more heat and smoke than light. On a number of Twitter threads I've tried to launch my own terminology, but probably haven't been terribly consistent. So here is an attempt at that.
Thursday, February 07, 2019
An idea for a little exploration occurred to me back at Infinity -- that is 7.5 years ago -- that I've never tried out. But I never got around to it. I had some downtime recently to play around so I finally executed the experiment -- alas, it turns out not to be very interesting. Still, a negative result is a negative result.