Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • BTS
    Member
    • Sep 2010
    • 19

    #1

    Halo Genomics Selector Technology

    I'm wondering if anyone has experience with Halo Genomics' Selector Technology (formerly O-link Genomics)? We are considering this technology for targeted resequencing of a panel of about 500-600 genes. Could this step negate the need to use custom designed probes for hybridization and capture via Agilent or Nimblegen?

    I'm envisioning that this could be done before fragmentation and post fragmentation steps would only include ligation of adaptors but I'm not positive...

    Thanks in advance
  • james hadfield
    Moderator
    Cambridge, UK
    Community Forum
    • Feb 2008
    • 224

    #2
    Yes you would not need t do any Agilent or Nimblegen caputre, they are a competitor although not for whole exomes. The HaloGenomics technology could possibly be made to work as a no-PCR protocol but it neds some tweaking. Looks good thouigh, I meant to follow up after AGBT. Must get that email sent!

    Comment

    • krobison
      Senior Member
      • Nov 2007
      • 734

      #3
      Well, you wouldn't need custom Agilent or Nimblegen probes -- but would need custom Halo Selector probes. No fragmentation though (they use restriction enzyme digestion).

      Have you gotten pricing? When I talked to them a year plus ago, it seemed they were pricing for large projects (many samples) -- which perhaps yours is. In general, anything requiring custom oligos that aren't made on microarrays is going to have economics skewed towards large projects.

      Comment

      • BTS
        Member
        • Sep 2010
        • 19

        #4
        We are going to be sequencing on a GAIIx with 2x75 bp reads. Wouldn't we still have to fragment to remove bias towards the ends of the fragments?

        I don't have the exact pricing but from what I understand it is comparable to Nimblegen or Agilent custom captures.

        Comment

        • krobison
          Senior Member
          • Nov 2007
          • 734

          #5
          You are correct -- my mistake. The difference vs. the Agilent & Nimblegen schemes is the fragmentation & library construction is after selection, not before.

          This NAR paper seems to have a good M&M section explaining all of it.

          Comment

          • Seqasaurus
            Member
            • Sep 2010
            • 24

            #6
            Uppsala Genome Centre plans to start sometime in the autumn

            Comment

            • epistatic
              Senior Member
              • Mar 2009
              • 129

              #7
              I have made 30 libraries with the Halo Genomics selector probes. The process was very straightforward and I am waiting to hear back from the analysis how specific the capture was.

              The capture was backwards from our exome work, it occurs prior to library construction. The end product is high molecular weight genomic DNA produced from circle dependent amplification with phi29, so I did have to shear all of the captured samples with the Covaris before going into standard library construction.

              I have not yet tried their PCR version that should bypass the library construction. We find their process fits well in the space between PCR enrichment and Agilent/Nimblegen/Illumina biotinylated bait capture.

              Comment

              • TonyBrooks
                Senior Member
                • Jun 2009
                • 303

                #8
                We are seriously considering it as an alternative to Agilent capture for a few projects. Price-wise, it's very competitive to Agilent if you are running a high enough sample number. When you add in the time saving, apparently 50 preps can be done in a day, then it looks good. We also only have access to a S2 Covaris, so just shearing our samples for Agilent capture would probably take two days.
                Sequencing needs to be 100bp paired end and they support up to 96 indexes (soon to be up to 384, I think).
                We've found it looks to be particularly helpful for repetitive areas of the genome. We could design to 95.2% of our region of interest using Halo. By contrast we designed baits to 63% using SureSelect, and (when discounting the small gaps that would still be sequenced), we estimated we'd still miss around 15-20% as some of those gaps are large (>1kb).
                They also expect <95% of reads to hit target, so all quoted specs look good.
                Now we have to make a decision on which technology to go for.

                Comment

                • genomehacker
                  Junior Member
                  • Oct 2008
                  • 1

                  #9
                  Agilent acquires Halo!

                  Comment

                  Latest Articles

                  Collapse

                  • SEQadmin2
                    Beyond CRISPR/Cas9: Understand, Choose, and Use the Right Genome Editing Tool
                    by SEQadmin2



                    CRISPR/Cas9 sparked the gene editing revolution for both research and therapeutics.1 But this system still showed severe issues that limited its applications. The most prominent were the heavy reliance on PAM sequences, delivery limitations, double-stranded breaks that prompt unintended edits and cell death, and editing inefficiency (both in targeting and in knock-in reliability).

                    Despite this, “CRISPR helped turn genome editing from a specialized technique into
                    ...
                    Today, 11:01 AM
                  • SEQadmin2
                    Proteomic Platforms: How to Choose the Right Analytical Strategy to Improve Detection and Clinical Applications
                    by SEQadmin2


                    Proteomics platforms are evolving rapidly, with advances in mass spectrometry and affinity-based approaches expanding what researchers can detect and at what scale. As the field moves toward deeper proteome coverage and clinical applications, scientists face an increasingly complex landscape of tools. This article will explore how researchers are navigating these choices to find the right platform for their work.

                    The systematic characterization of the human proteome has
                    ...
                    07-20-2026, 11:48 AM
                  • SEQadmin2
                    Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
                    by SEQadmin2



                    Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
                    ...
                    07-09-2026, 11:10 AM

                  ad_right_rmr

                  Collapse

                  News

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by SEQadmin2, Today, 02:55 AM
                  0 responses
                  7 views
                  0 reactions
                  Last Post SEQadmin2  
                  Started by SEQadmin2, 07-24-2026, 12:17 PM
                  0 responses
                  11 views
                  0 reactions
                  Last Post SEQadmin2  
                  Started by SEQadmin2, 07-23-2026, 11:41 AM
                  0 responses
                  12 views
                  0 reactions
                  Last Post SEQadmin2  
                  Started by SEQadmin2, 07-20-2026, 11:10 AM
                  0 responses
                  24 views
                  0 reactions
                  Last Post SEQadmin2  
                  Working...