5
$\begingroup$

In the price curve of the genome, from NIH:

price curve

NIH explained the abrupt drop at 2008 thusly:

beginning in January 2008... the sequencing centers transitioned from Sanger-based (dideoxy chain termination sequencing) to 'second generation' (or 'next-generation') DNA sequencing technologies.

The NIH did not give any details as to why there was a similarly precipitous drop in 2015, or why there was such a saddening (for me!) plateau after that. Please explain them to me?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

This graph from the Broad's Opinionome blog (ugh) is somewhat more annotated:

Annotated graph with sequencing costs dropping in 2007 and 2014

As noted elsewhere, the precipitous drop in 2007 is almost certainly due to maturing next-gen sequencing (NGS), in particular Illumina. Illumina acquired Solexa in 2007, which offered gigabase-level sequencing ability. In 2014, President of Illumina Francis de Souza essentially said as much:

During the EmTech conference, De Souza said Illumina’s success was due to a “hard pivot” the company made in 2006, when it got into the DNA sequencing business by acquiring Solexa, a U.K. startup, and bet its fortunes “on a technology with no sales, that no one knew if it would work.”

Essentially, by 2007/2008 you had stellar technology+company hard-selling it = adoption

I'm less certain about the less-dramatic drop in 2014/2015, but I agree with Franck that it's likely largely be due to the introduction of the Illumina HiSeq X Ten in early 2014. You can read some corporate spam, but it was indeed a big deal. There were other technologies that probably played a role (new PacBio system released in 2013, etc.) but Illumina was and is top-dog.

None of this takes into consideration increased interest in such research, or the faster computers, larger SSDs, and expansion/normalization of multi-core systems that makes working with such data easier.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The "opinionome" is the oddest use of "-ome" I've seen so far lol $\endgroup$ – MaudPieTheRocktorate Jul 5 at 11:30
  • $\begingroup$ @MaudPieTheRocktorate This is likely intentionally tongue-in-cheek, but a friend and I used to keep a list of wild -omics words in published papers, and... yeah, there are some categorically absurd ones. $\endgroup$ – Amory Jul 5 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ Would you give a few examples? For the lolz of posterity. $\endgroup$ – MaudPieTheRocktorate Jul 9 at 10:17
4
$\begingroup$

The graph is in contradiction with the data in the Excel spreadsheet the same webpage provides (https://www.genome.gov/sites/default/files/media/files/2019-06/Sequencing_Cost_Data_Table_Feb2019.xls (mirror)), which I plotted below:

enter image description here

enter image description here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=\$1,000_genome&oldid=902062326#Commercial_efforts to some of the dates on the reaching the 1000 USD/genome goal, and doesn't indicate any plateau:

In January 2014, Illumina launched its HiSeq X Ten Sequencer, claiming to have produced the first \$1,000 genome at 30× coverage. Some researchers hailed the HiSeq X Ten's release as a milestone – Michael Schatz of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said that "it is a major human accomplishment on par with the development of the telescope or the microprocessor". However, critics pointed out that the \$10 million upfront investment required to purchase the system would deter customers. Furthermore, the \$1,000 genome cost calculation left out overheads, such as the cost of powering the machine.[25] In September 2015, Veritas Genetics (co-founded by George Church) announced \$1,000 full-genome sequencing including interpretation for participants in the Personal Genome Project.[26]

In April 2017, the newly formed European company Dante Labs started offering the WGS for \$900.[27][28] In 2017, Beijing Genomics Institute began offering WGS for \$600.[29] In July 2018, on Amazon Prime Day, Dante Labs offered it for \$349.[30] In November 2018, around the time of Black Friday, Dante Labs offered WGS for the first time less than \$200,[31][32] and Veritas Genetics for two days for the same price of \$199 offered WGS limited to a thousand customers.[33] In March of the same year, geneticist Matthew Hurles of Wellcome Sanger Institute noted that the private companies, including Illumina,[34] are currently competing to reach a new target for WGS of only \$100.[35]

Page summarizing current prices: http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc/genome_services.html (mirror).

Update (2019-07-03) https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/01/for-600-veritas-genetics-sequences-6point4-billion-letters-of-your-dna.html (mirror):

Veritas is lowering the cost of a full genome sequence from \$999 to \$599 and believes within two years it will be pricing in the \$100–\$200 range.

Another price progression plot from https://youtu.be/jH87sfVD36M?t=554 ("George Church - Cognition Genes. Aging Reversal. Lab-built Brain Components"):

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Illumina launched HiSeq 2000 in early 2010 after purchasing it from Solexa in 2007 dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/251364 $\endgroup$ – Dexter Jun 29 at 5:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By "contradiction" do you mean the mistake in the y-axis labeling? $\endgroup$ – tyersome Jun 29 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ @tyersome yes that seems to be the issue $\endgroup$ – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 29 at 20:29
1
$\begingroup$

I'm not 100% sure, but I think Illumina launched their HiSeq machine around that time, massively increasing the sequencing output in one run. That dip might be related to that.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.