查了一下最近BNGO的文章，11月發了一篇關於Digital Cyto的文章，他們的產品在臨床上還是有價值的，會挑戰ThermoFisher和Sigma這類公司的相關產品。但是這些公司足夠大，產品足夠豐富，對公司本身沒有威脅。
沒看到任何關於Bionano做SNPs相關的數據，最關鍵的是error rate，我懷疑不會太好，可能很糟糕。
下麵這個圖還是很具欺騙性。打眼一看，像是Bionano占了1/4的市場。憑借它的Digital Cyto的優勢也就是很小的一個niche market。
它對SNPs相關的產品沒有任何影響，也不是直接競爭關係。
另外，這幾天 in an emailed statement, PacBio CSO Jonas Korlach said that the company is "grateful that PacBio was used as a foundational technology in this exciting study, revealing the vast majority (greater than 100,000) of the unique structural variants reported, spanning the full size spectrum of genetic variation."
"In contrast, optical mapping was limited to SV information for variant sizes [greater than] 5 kb, contributing [approximately] 1,600 unique variants," Korlach noted. "In addition, PacBio sequencing provides both exact and sequence-resolved SV breakpoints as well as the actual sequences of insertions, both of which Bionano Genomics technology does not."
So the complimentary nature of the technologies is apparent, with PACB doing 99% of the work and BNGO doing the last 1%. The question is, can BNGO lower their costs to make it worthwhile to use? I believe Bruce says a 5X reduction is necessary. Also, as throughput and read lengths improve, PACB will continue to chip away at any advantage that BNGO holds in large SV detection. According to the BNGO paper, of the 1600 large SVs detected by BNGO, PACB can already detect ~1200 of them with accompanying sequence data.
一個企業的發展要符合天時地利人和，年初PACB被收購失敗就是一個改變企業命運的契機。
