Even if/when protein sequencing catches up, nucleic acids will still be sequenced. (And protein sequencing is SO much harder than DNA/RNA - I really think it will be a long time before it catches up.)
Illumina (and a few other companies) have been selling/developing DNA sequencing platforms that are called “next gen(eration) sequencing”. They are “next” in that they’re post-Sanger sequencing. But at 20 years old, the term “next” doesn’t really work anymore.
I usually say high-throughput sequencing, because that's the part that's important for my use cases. Or "Illumina sequencing" if it's really just Illumina sequencing. (Unfortunately, "sequencing by synthesis" is awkward and not as widely understood.)
100% of the sequencing I’ve done this year is <200 nt length dRNA nanopore reads, so “short read” doesn’t even clarify it for me. The second one is ok but I end up saying Illumina 99% of the time. Easier for more colleagues to follow.
Interestingly, my molecular genetics textbook (Pearson) teaches that Illumina is NGS and then goes on to talk about third-generation sequencing. They say PacBio is third-gen
I agree..but to reach out to bigger (and not so technically aware) audience..I would stick to NGS..for illumina..but will always start my sessions with pyroseq and then describe SBS.
Comments
Now that we have users who were born after the commercial availability of "next-generation sequencing" it is truly ridiculous. 🧪🧬🖥️