Does anybody know if the solid 4hq is anywhere close to being released or if anybody has any idea of the day-to-day throughput of the machine?
-
-
Last I heard, 4hq was slated for release at the end of the year. I have also heard that unlike all previous upgrades, this 4hq will be expensive. On the order of $100,000 (USD). So that probably means a new camera to support smaller bead sizes? Possibly other changes to allow longer reads (75 bases)?
Here is a link to a story back in the spring:
v4
--
Phillip -
From the link below, it sounds like PI will be available in Dec and HQ in March next year.
Comment
-
hi all, I got the info that these two new solids will be launched at the ASHG.Comment
-
At a Life Tech. talk last week they showed some slides and it seems they've renamed the Pi and the HQ to something like the 5500 and 5500XL. I don't recall a mention of release dates though.Comment
-
I presume you are joking.
In any case the SOLiD v1 should be the 37000.
--
PhillipComment
-
Makes sense to change the name if it is a completely new instrument... Not sure what the 5500 would stand for though, something with a new encoding scheme or the error rate?Comment
-
5500? wasn´t that the "name" of ABIs QTRAP? confusing. However, I don´t care about names if the product fits.Comment
-
I'm sure he is joking or mistaken.Originally posted by Chipper View Post
ABI, for whatever reason, used to go with serial number-like product names. The earliest slab gel sequencers were all 37x, where "x" was 0, 3 or 7. Then the 48/96 capillary sequencers that followed were 37x0 where "x" was a 0 or 3.
So the sequencer that followed the 3730XL should have been the 37000. But ABI, by this point, presumably realized that names were easier for most people to remember than numbers. I don't see them going back to the old naming methods.
Sad, in a way. Knowledge of an ABI sequencer name once meant something. It was a shibboleth. If someone started talking about running a 377 you knew they did probably did not come by this knowledge lightly. More than likely they suffered, just like you did, pouring those slab gels without bubbles. And if you related your problems with "red rain", they might well weep in empathy with you.
On the other hand, no instrument I've ever used has a "misery index" even approaching that of the SOLiD. (I'll define this index as the cost of a lost run multiplied by the length, in days, of a run.)
--
PhillipComment
-
Sorry Phillip (go Boilers!), but I'm not joking or mistaken. During the talk of the Life Tech. sequencing platforms, there was a slide showing both instruments w/ the new names, and he said that we were one of the first groups of people to hear that new info. The speaker was Michael Rhodes, Senior Manager - Sequencing, from Life Technologies.Comment
-
I heard the same. In addition, from the slide they showed, HQ will have a new look, more like PI not S4.Originally posted by RCJK View PostComment
-
Good to hear that they decided to use the new platform for HQ as well, any info on the difference between the two? One slide for PI and two for HQ?Comment
-
Yes, 1 slide for Pi, 2 for HQ. I don't recall any other specific differences. I believe they both use the same chemistries and software.Comment
-
I thought HQ was to be using 0.7 micron beads instead of the current 1 micron beads. Hence, more beads per slides. But also necessitating new optics (camera?) capable of resolving the smaller beads. And, for those of us stuck with pre-HQ instruments, a $100K bill to upgrade.Originally posted by RCJK View Post
Chemistry-wise, I understood they would be offering a new 5-base encoding chemistry that could be used along with the normal 2-base encoding chemistry to allow conversion to base space reads with out the normal error propagation issues. (Or, at least, the errors would propagate a maximum of 5 bases.)
No word on either of those capabilities?
--
PhillipComment
-
A haiku for Phillip:
Solid. Misery.
Crashing. Cracking. Sliding. Pain!
Get better? Some day.Comment
-
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...07-31-2026, 11:01 AM -
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 -
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
Comment