Comment by Aurornis

Comment by Aurornis 9 hours ago

6 replies

Interesting concept, but between the broken hardware and the way they gave up before getting anything useful this article was rather disappointing:

> Another problem was our flow cell was malfunctioning from the start — only 623 out of 2048 pores were working.

Is this normal for the machine? Is there a better write up somewhere where they didn’t give up immediately after one attempt?

homeless_engi 9 hours ago

Hi, believe it or not, I have actually done what the authors were attempting. I used saliva rather than blood as a source of DNA and extracted it using a Qiagen kit.

My Nanopore flow cell had nearly every pore working from the start. So I would say that is not normal. Maybe it was stored incorrectly.

  • LolWolf 3 hours ago

    Do you have a write up somewhere? If not, it would be amazing if you wrote one!

    I was planning on doing a similar thing (also with saliva) once I finished moving in and had a bit more time after conferences. (But, of course, I’d have to go through and actually figure out all of the mechanics and so on.)

vintermann 34 minutes ago

I think it was pretty interesting in a "what would likely happen if you tried this" way. Negative results are good. A lot of technical problems is what I'd expected though, from my little experience in genetic genealogy.

MillironX 4 hours ago

> Is this normal for the machine?

No, it's not "normal," but it is fairly common. When I worked in NGS, nearly 1/4 of flow cells were duds. ONT used to have a policy where you could return the cell and get a new one if it failed its self-test.

sbassi 9 hours ago

it depends of the sample. usually you have at least 1200, with a guaranteed of at least 800, so maybe he could ask for a refund.

refurb 5 hours ago

Like most analytical methods, the preparation of the sample is key. High quality output comes with careful sample prep so that the analytical process can run optimally.