NGS vs. HTS?

[dan]

Do people use the term 'Next Generation Sequencing' or 'High throughput sequencing'?

Seems both are somewhat 'relativistic', but is one more accurate than the other? Certainly the former has greater currency, but is the latter gaining traction? Sorry for mixed metaphors ;-)


Cheers,

[pbluescript]

They are interchangeable for many people. I like HTS because what's after the next generation?

[dan]

They are interchangeable for many people. I like HTS because what's after the next generation?

After next gen comes next gen... just as the 'high' in 'high throughput' keeps increasing ;-)

[sklages]

They are interchangeable for many people. I like HTS because what's after the next generation?

In the good old times(tm) when we sequenced the human genome completely with sanger technology, we called it "High Throughput Sequencing" .. more than a decade ago :-) I still use this term for large sanger projects (as this type of sequencing is fairly rare these days, I do not use this term very much).

NGS startet with the new technologies (originally "second generation sequencing") and (at least for me) refers to these new technologies (454, Illumina and friends).

What will follow after next generation sequencing? Surely something with "giga", "tera" or words like "ultimate", "far beyond" etc ;-)

my 2p, Sven

[scbaker]

The problem with HTS is that not all new technologies will be 'high throughput'. Some of the nanopore technologies might actually be on the low side (albeit hopefully with very long reads). GnuBIO would be considered a NGS technology, but the initial throughput will be quite low as it's geared towards targeted sequencing. I suppose the same could be said of the original Ion Torrent PGM chips. So, imperfect as it is, I prefer NGS (as loosely defined as 'post Sanger').