查了一下最近BNGO的文章，11月发了一篇关于Digital Cyto的文章，他们的产品在临床上还是有价值的，会挑战ThermoFisher和Sigma这类公司的相关产品。但是这些公司足够大，产品足够丰富，对公司本身没有威胁。
没看到任何关于Bionano做SNPs相关的数据，最关键的是error rate，我怀疑不会太好，可能很糟糕。
下面这个图还是很具欺骗性。打眼一看，像是Bionano占了1/4的市场。凭借它的Digital Cyto的优势也就是很小的一个niche market。
它对SNPs相关的产品没有任何影响，也不是直接竞争关系。
另外，这几天 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.
一个企业的发展要符合天时地利人和，年初PACB被收购失败就是一个改变企业命运的契机。
