Ok, so the current NexteraXT dual-indexing adapters allow for 96 combinations using a 8x12 setup. We routinely run 96 samples per lane, and honestly, we'd like to add more.
The dual-index system is obviously scalable, and it wouldn't seem to require much work on Illumina's part to expand it to 384 unique combinations (16x24). My sales rep tells me that the system was designed to be scalable but she hasn't heard of anything in the pipeline. My core tells me we're the only user multiplexing so many samples per lane, so I'm not sure the demand is there to push them to go to the trouble and expense of validating and producing more indices.
The few commercially available systems I've seen for 384 index combos all seem to be 5' index strategies or otherwise wouldn't be NexteraXT compatible. I won't contemplate switching back from NexteraXT to a sonication/end-repair/ligation/amplification method as long as I'm the person making the libraries. Has anyone found a method or a way to NexteraXT-compliant indexing beyond the 96 combinations available at present?
best,
docbio
The dual-index system is obviously scalable, and it wouldn't seem to require much work on Illumina's part to expand it to 384 unique combinations (16x24). My sales rep tells me that the system was designed to be scalable but she hasn't heard of anything in the pipeline. My core tells me we're the only user multiplexing so many samples per lane, so I'm not sure the demand is there to push them to go to the trouble and expense of validating and producing more indices.
The few commercially available systems I've seen for 384 index combos all seem to be 5' index strategies or otherwise wouldn't be NexteraXT compatible. I won't contemplate switching back from NexteraXT to a sonication/end-repair/ligation/amplification method as long as I'm the person making the libraries. Has anyone found a method or a way to NexteraXT-compliant indexing beyond the 96 combinations available at present?
best,
docbio
Comment