You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Dear authors,
I read today with interest your BMC article on the method implemented in this repository. I am, however, unsure on how it would be replicated experimentally. Specifically, am I correct in understanding that you propose that, in case of a low-concentration sample, the experimenter should "load up" the sample with a known sequence, e.g. the lambda phage used in the article?
If that is the case, I am curious regarding the specific role of the carrier in the reaction. Why would the results be better than without adding the carrier at all? I am afraid that I might have missed the section of the manuscript where you make the argument.
Thank you for your help.
Kind regards
Luca Venturini
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Luca—
Your description is accurate. It is easy to lose a small amount of DNA
during library preparation, so using a carrier minimizes any such losses
(in addition to maintaining reaction stoichiometry). In addition, nanopore
sequencing with little DNA leads to rapid pore burnout. So the carrier acts
as a pore-maintainer.
Chris
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 8:35 AM Luca Venturini ***@***.***> wrote:
Dear authors,
I read today with interest your BMC article on the method implemented in
this repository. I am, however, unsure on how it would be replicated
experimentally. Specifically, am I correct in understanding that you
propose that, in case of a low-concentration sample, the experimenter
should "load up" the sample with a known sequence, e.g. the lambda phage
used in the article?
If that is the case, I am curious regarding the specific role of the
carrier in the reaction. Why would the results be better than without
adding the carrier at all? I am afraid that I might have missed the section
of the manuscript where you make the argument.
Thank you for your help.
Kind regards
Luca Venturini
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#7>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFCXs45wWrkYsV9SUqNZ2f0iXZl02VCgks5u9PbOgaJpZM4Zi9_7>
.
--
Christopher E. Carr, Sc.D.
Research Scientist, MIT
Research Fellow, MGH
chrisc@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/chrisc/wwwhttps://twitter.com/c_e_carr
+1-617-253-0786 (office)
+1-617-643-2910 (lab)
+1-617-216-5012 (mobile)
Lab and shipping address:
MGH Mol Bio Simches Bldg
185 Cambridge St, CPZN7700
Boston, MA 02114, USA
Dear authors,
I read today with interest your BMC article on the method implemented in this repository. I am, however, unsure on how it would be replicated experimentally. Specifically, am I correct in understanding that you propose that, in case of a low-concentration sample, the experimenter should "load up" the sample with a known sequence, e.g. the lambda phage used in the article?
If that is the case, I am curious regarding the specific role of the carrier in the reaction. Why would the results be better than without adding the carrier at all? I am afraid that I might have missed the section of the manuscript where you make the argument.
Thank you for your help.
Kind regards
Luca Venturini
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: