4 ms·
I would much rather have ONT backed by Pacbio than ONT backed by Illumina. ONT is well suited for doing WES quickly, with better fidelity than Illumina and PacB
by aroch 11y ago
I would much rather have ONT backed by Pacbio than ONT backed by Illumina. ONT is well suited for doing WES quickly, with better fidelity than Illumina and PacBio is much better for supplemental data to do genome assembly using reads from a short read system
- adenadel 11y agoWhat evidence do you have for ONT having better fidelity than Illumina in any application? Illumina's error rates are typically <= 1% while on "good" reads ONT has error rates cited at 15% and overall is even worse[1]. I agree that PacBio is better for genome assembly, but for many cases we do not need to do assembly. Resequencing workflows with alignment and variant calling are pretty good. 1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214753515000224 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214753515...