The genomics blogosphere is abuzz over allegations that a purchasing decision of next-generation sequencing machines was politically motivated. In a November 2008 letter sent to a UK House of Lords select committee, Kevin McKernan, senior director of scientific operations at Applied Biosystems (ABI), cried foul at the Sanger Centre’s decision to return five of ABI’s SOLiD System machines in favour of the platform developed by Illumina/Solexa.
The letter accused Sanger researchers of bearing a grudge against ABI because of its Craig Venter-tinged connections in the race to sequence the human genome. McKernan also asserted that the institute leadership took “a more historical approach” in its decision to go with more Illumina Genome Analyzer sequencers, noting that many Sanger staff members have close ties with the rival company.
Nick Loman of the University of Birmingham ridiculed this claim. “Calling the approach historical is slightly ironic given that ABI used to be the only show in town and the Sanger had over a hundred ABI machines running during the [Human Genome Project],” he wrote on the blog Pathogens: Genes and Genomes. Moreover, Solexa, which Illumina acquired in January 2007, was headquartered in Cambridgeshire, and many of their former workers turned Hinxton, UK-based Sanger staff stayed close to home, Loman noted.
In a detailed dissection of the ins and outs of next-generation sequencing, Luke Jostins, a Sanger Centre graduate student, referenced KcKernan’s letter on his blog Genetic Inference, writing, perhaps only half jokingly, that he’s going to omit description’s of SOLiD’s technology “because I too am part of the shadowy cabal of people trying to destroy ABI.”
David Dooling, assistant director of informatics at Washington University’s Genome Center in St Louis, Missouri, said a quick Google search helped him expose the contentious letter in a post on his PolITiGenomics blog. He noted that his own institution, which partnered with Sanger in the genome race against ABI/Celera, has also ditched all its SOLiD machines. But he dismissed McKernan’s claims of nefarious backroom dealings. “It doesn’t seem right to impugn someone else’s character in that way when there are countless other reasons — scientific reasons — why the Sanger Institute would make that choice,” Dooling told Nature.
Julian Parkhill, director of sequencing at the Sanger Institute, claimed that the units were returned to minimize extra investment in molecular biology and informatics infrastructure, according to GenomeWeb.
In a separate post, Loman also tabulated all the known next-gen sequencing kits located around the United Kingdom. Sanger heavily tilts the balance with its 40 Illumina and two 454 machines (and zero SOLiD’s). But even omitting the Wellcome Trust-funded sequencing powerhouse, British institutions have collectively purchased 12 Illumina’s and only three SOLiD’s. “It’s clear from the list that Illumina’s dominance over AB[I]’s SOLiD technology is not restricted to the Sanger Institute,” Daniel MacArthur wrote on the blog Genetic Future.
Neither ABI nor Sanger officials have responded to Nature‘s requests for comment.
Image: flickr/jurveston