During the last year the Nucleic Acids Committee has been principally involved in analyzing the mountains of data collected from both the survey questionnaire and the unknown sequencing sample which we distributed. Our questionnaire was answered by approximately 150 facilities (thanks to all of you!) in the USA and Canada. This was the first ABRF survey to concentrate solely on nucleic acid services. DNA synthesis was offered by 85 respondents and DNA sequencing by 37 respondents. The survey results were published in the September 1994 issue (Volume 17, No. 3, pp 526-534) of BioTechniques. However, from this data, there were two general conclusions which became available. First, the ABRF and its members make a very significant economic impact. In 1992, ABRF members synthesized oligonucleotides equivalent to over 4 million bases (estimated cost $12-14 million) and sequenced over 100,000 DNA templates (estimated cost $1.5-2 million). Secondly, there is quite a wide range in the scope of each member's activities, possibly indicative of individual strengths and weaknesses among the different technologies. This variation in expertise within our association is an excellent justification for supporting the ABRF. We obviously have specialists in certain areas who can teach a few things (if not more) to many others. Increasing the dissemination of information related to technical aspects of nucleic acid services should become a high priority for our committee in the future. Please contact Richard Pon (rtpon@acs.ucalgary.ca) if you have any suggestions for topics which should be covered by future articles or surveys, or simply have a tip or technique which might be useful to pass along.
The results of our unknown DNA sequencing sample are in the final tabulation stage. Results were returned by 38 respondents who used either ABI (36), Pharmacia (1), or Li- Cor (1) sequencers. Recipients were asked to sequence using either or both the dye terminator (37 results received) or dye primer methods (13 results received) and the duplicate submissions have allowed us to make several interesting comparisons between the two methods. Although the dye terminator chemistry was used exclusively by the majority of facilities, this method produced a shorter usable length of read (325 bases) which was not significantly improved by manual editing, than the dye primer method. With dye primers the average usable unedited length of read was longer (380 bases) and it could be significantly improved (to 480 bases) after manual editing. However, the error rate in the first 75 bases of the dye primer results was high because of fluorescence overload (caused by the dye front). A full discussion of these results will be completed later this fall.
Finally, the Committee would like to thank Eleanor Spicer who actively contributed to our committee for three years before stepping down this spring, as well as the other continuing members of our committee, for a job well done.
Return to the The ABRF Home Page