![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The lead may be plagiar of [1]. Synchronism ( talk) 06:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The language here, implying the technology will be applicable to a variety of biological problems, reads like PacBio marketing literature. In particular, AFAIK there is no scientifically documented basis for the statement "The longer read length allows de novo genome sequencing and easier genome assemblies."
I would suggest that this entire section be removed until there are published examples of these applications being accomplished with the technology (which many, myself included, would welcome). Rwintle ( talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Talks at American Society of Human Genetics 2010 in Washington, D.C. suggest SMRT sequencing currently provides ~80% read accuracy. Not reasonably high enough to justify claim that PacBio is able to sequence genomes in a de novo manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.245.254 ( talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
this whole thing is an advert for pacbio, and needs to be rewritten, and mainly, merged into the exisitng DNA sequencing article Cinnamon colbert ( talk) 12:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The article has potential but needs some work. No, I mean lots of work. Regarding the lead section, it could become shorter and more understandable to non-experts. Maybe I can help, but my sources are written in Russian. Can we use non-English sources for the English Wikipedia? Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση ( talk) 01:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot of info in the Sequencing Performance section about how read length exceeds that of Sanger sequencing, but what about read accuracy? Sanger is regarded as the gold standard for accurate sequencing. How does the PacBio approach compare? My own understanding is that the error rate is relatively high, at about 12% for 1x coverage (see, for example http://cshl.edu/Research/PacBio.html).
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The lead may be plagiar of [1]. Synchronism ( talk) 06:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The language here, implying the technology will be applicable to a variety of biological problems, reads like PacBio marketing literature. In particular, AFAIK there is no scientifically documented basis for the statement "The longer read length allows de novo genome sequencing and easier genome assemblies."
I would suggest that this entire section be removed until there are published examples of these applications being accomplished with the technology (which many, myself included, would welcome). Rwintle ( talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Talks at American Society of Human Genetics 2010 in Washington, D.C. suggest SMRT sequencing currently provides ~80% read accuracy. Not reasonably high enough to justify claim that PacBio is able to sequence genomes in a de novo manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.245.254 ( talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
this whole thing is an advert for pacbio, and needs to be rewritten, and mainly, merged into the exisitng DNA sequencing article Cinnamon colbert ( talk) 12:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The article has potential but needs some work. No, I mean lots of work. Regarding the lead section, it could become shorter and more understandable to non-experts. Maybe I can help, but my sources are written in Russian. Can we use non-English sources for the English Wikipedia? Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση ( talk) 01:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot of info in the Sequencing Performance section about how read length exceeds that of Sanger sequencing, but what about read accuracy? Sanger is regarded as the gold standard for accurate sequencing. How does the PacBio approach compare? My own understanding is that the error rate is relatively high, at about 12% for 1x coverage (see, for example http://cshl.edu/Research/PacBio.html).