Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • pmiguel
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2008
    • 2328

    Depositing half a billion beads

    Version 3plus SOLiD runs call for slide densities around 500 million beads. The problem is that in our hands deposition efficiency is highly variable.

    For our last slide we tried to calculate the number of beads to deposit based on our WFA. But while the WFA had 64% deposition efficiency, the actual run only gave us 50% efficiency.

    Anyone have this issue solved? Or is not seeing it?

    --
    Phillip
  • snetmcom
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2008
    • 159

    #2
    im not sure what you mean by deposition efficiency? is this a metric you have created?

    bead deposition is still not linear. I get best results with 120% of my WFA numbers as with v3.

    the WFA numbers are much more user dependant with v3plus it seems. If your deposition is off in some manner, it will scale up very poorly.

    Comment

    • pmiguel
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2008
      • 2328

      #3
      I believe that "deposition efficiency" is an Applied Biosystems term meaning percentage of bead counted in the focal map of a run divided by the number of beads added to the slide. Some of the beads do not stick, apparently.

      --
      Phillip

      Comment

      • snetmcom
        Senior Member
        • Oct 2008
        • 159

        #4
        yeah. never heard of that.
        Not all of the beads stick, even more so when you are around 500 million. I have never had attrition post focal map though.

        I have not had an issue hitting 450+ million with my calculations either. Maybe something is going wrong at 3' mod.

        Comment

        • pmiguel
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2008
          • 2328

          #5
          Originally posted by snetmcom View Post
          yeah. never heard of that.
          Not all of the beads stick, even more so when you are around 500 million. I have never had attrition post focal map though.

          I have not had an issue hitting 450+ million with my calculations either. Maybe something is going wrong at 3' mod.
          No, we have not seen post focal map attrition either. We have returned to doing the 3' modification overnight.

          We actually did get to 474 million loaded, but that required loading every bead that we had left. The efficiency was a little better than we got for the WFA--we had projected having less than 400 million.

          --
          Phillip

          Comment

          Latest Articles

          Collapse

          • 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
          • SEQadmin2
            Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
            by SEQadmin2



            Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

            There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
            07-08-2026, 05:17 AM
          • GATTACAT
            Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
            by GATTACAT
            Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
            07-01-2026, 11:43 AM

          ad_right_rmr

          Collapse

          News

          Collapse

          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 10:26 AM
          0 responses
          11 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 07-09-2026, 10:04 AM
          0 responses
          25 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 07-08-2026, 10:08 AM
          0 responses
          16 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 07-07-2026, 11:05 AM
          0 responses
          33 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Working...