Tweet
Does anyone know any update?
Our recent run showed significantly high FAM signal as more cycles go.
Our recent run showed significantly high FAM signal as more cycles go.
-
-
We were told its related to the cleave 2.1 reagent. AB thinks this reagent with lot #'s 1010014 and 1010016 is the cause.
Dave -
Any outside verification on this? We are using the new cleave reagent batch and also see this increasing in FAM signal. I am not sure it is relevant. I always interpret these color balance skew over time issues as a loss of signal strength. As the signal drops the background "dead" bead color just gets interpreted as one of the 4. Maybe a 5th "color" (grey?) should be assigned to beads that are basically just too weak to assay.
--
PhillipComment
-
We are having the same problem, despite using a supposedly "good" lot of Cleave 2.1 buffer and strips. F5 quality is very poor.Comment
-
I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.
Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...06-18-2026, 07:11 AM -
Data variability is still an issue in sequencing technologies despite the advances in reproducibility and accuracy of these platforms. But the problem does not originate in the sequencing itself, but in the previous steps, before the sample reaches the sequencer.
The first step is collection, followed by preservation and sample preparation for analysis. Most scientists overlook those steps, but not being careful might just be skewing the experiment’s results.
...06-02-2026, 10:05 AM
Comment