Talk:Illumina, Inc.

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Illumina (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019160401/http://www.everygenome.com/ to http://www.everygenome.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019160401/http://www.everygenome.com/ to http://www.everygenome.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808044208/http://www.roche.com/media/media_releases/med-cor-2012-04-18.htm to http://www.roche.com/media/media_releases/med-cor-2012-04-18.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019160401/http://www.everygenome.com/ to http://www.everygenome.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716110948/http://www.ncgr.org/quick-jump to http://www.ncgr.org/quick-jump

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged (concluded by User:Indefensible). DMacks (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The article on Czarnik v. Illumina Inc. has an excessive dependence on primary sources (mostly court filings and opinions) and seems to fail the general notability guideline (best source I could find). It is worth noting it is a 13-year-old case so any relevant links may have gone dead; however, even if additional sources were found the case could still be easily covered as part of this article. Article creator has a conflict of interest, which may have led him to overestimate the importance of this case, but has done a commendable job following review processes to ensure his work is neutral. – Teratix ₵ 05:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Researchers interested in Illumina (or the gene sequencing industry generally) will not be particularly interested in the Czarnic case because the case wasn't super important to the company. Researchers interested in the Czarnic case will be doing legal research, not commercial or science research, and thus will not be particularly interested in Illumina per se. I thus suggest keeping the two articles separate because their readership is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.230.98 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The case may not be incredibly important to the company, but it's relevant enough to warrant a mention in a couple of sentences. The alternative is outright deleting Czarnik v. Illumina, as there's no other merge target I can think of. – Teratix ₵ 13:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Don't merge – Although the case may not be all that important in the grand scheme of the history of the company, it is notable in the field of patent law. As the article already indicates, it was the first case to hold that reputational harm can satisfy the standing requirement for bringing a 35 USC § 256 claim, which created a district split that is still unresolved. This is a developing area of patent law that is similar to some of Robert Merges's arguments, and Czarnik v Illumina was actually cited in a law review article earlier this year on the topic of courts recognizing a moral right to credit. That law review article is another secondary source that could be added to the article to show notability (I'll add something related to that to the article a little later when I have more time). Inks.LWC (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The case seems to have standalone significance outside of the context of Illumina, and seems more important to the field of law than to the biotechnology field which Illumina is in. - Indefensible (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge I concur with the oppose arguments above. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - It has been 8 months since this merge proposal was made and it does not seem to have the support to proceed; I think it should be closed soon. - Indefensible (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed merge proposal tags as it has been an additional week without comment or objection - Indefensible (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Corrections requested

Hi, I work for Illumina, and would like to request some corrections to this Wikipedia article to improve its accuracy.

I'd like to start by requesting these corrections to the chart in the Acquisition History subsection:

1. "Helix" is a misspelling; the acquisition is Helixis and the date should be 2010. Verification: [1]

2. Solexa, Inc. was acquired in 2007 (not 2008). Verification: [2] [3]

3. Please add Conexio Genomics (Acq 2016). Verification: [4]

4. Please make sure, with the date changes, that everything is in chronological order.

5. Could you possibly remove the words "mergers" and "spin-offs and historical predecessors" at the top of the chart? The only items listed are Illumina's acquisitions (plus the merger that created Solexa, Inc. two years before Illumina acquired Solexa, Inc. -- should that even be in the chart?).

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. TM.at.illumina (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for implementing most of these, Ptrnext. I will close out this request now. TM.at.illumina (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Corrections to text requested

Hi, I work for Illumina (my COI is declared at the top of this page), and would like to request some corrections to this Wikipedia article to improve its accuracy.

1. Quick fix: In Paragraph 3 (sentence 2) of History section, change the text "Solexa INC" to "Solexa, Inc.".

2. Quick fix: Change Gb to GB (twice) in the sentence about Enancio (last sentence of 7th paragraph of History section), per the citation. (Gb means gigabits, and GB means gigabytes.)

3. Medium fix: In the 8th paragraph of the History section, please add the underscored text below and delete the stricken text:

• On July 5, 2016, Jay Flatley, who had been CEO since 1999, assumed the role of executive chairman of the board of directors. Francis deSouza, who had been president of the company since 2013, took on the additional role of president and chief executive officer, and continues to serve on the Illumina board of directors.[28][self-published source][29]
• Please remove the flagged self-published source and add the following two viewable citations:

• https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2016/03/07/illumina-likes-francis-desouzas-dna-elevating-president-to-ceo/
• https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/illumina-ilmn-ceo-stepping-down-after-17-years

Wiki markup of corrected text, if that's helpful (you can just copy and replace the entire short paragraph):

On July 5, 2016, Jay Flatley, who had been CEO since 1999, assumed the role of executive chairman of the board of directors. Francis deSouza, who had been president of the company since 2013, took on the additional role of chief executive officer, and continues to serve on the Illumina board of directors.

4. Medium fix:

• There is a redundancy of text/information in the "Products" and "Flow Cells" sections:

• The Products section contains this text:

From a single run, the MiSeq generates 30 million reads, the HiSeq generates 3 billion reads, and the NovaSeq generates 13 billion reads.

• The Flow Cells section contains this text:

In MiSeq sequencers, the flow cell can generate between 1 million and 30 million reads per run.  The HiSeq flow cell is larger than that of the MiSeq and has the ability to generate 3 billion reads per run.  Lastly, the NovaSeq flow cell is the largest of the three and can generate 13 billion reads per run.

• Please delete that text from the Flow Cells section, because it is unnecessary, redundant, and uncited.

Thanks very much, and any assistance will be appreciated. TM.at.illumina (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@TM.at.illumina: I've implemented #1 as-is, and implemented #2 with a minor enhancement (to wikilink the first use of GB to gigabye).

With regards to #4, I am not sure I want to fulfil that request as it currently stands for several different reasons. Some brief research suggests that typical read generation per run for the MiSeq is actually considerably lower than the 30 million figures quoted for the MiSeq (e.g. ~22–25 million with v3 kits, or ~15 million with v2 kits), and I'm going to assume this can be extrapolated to the HiSeq/NovaSeq.

Additionally, the fact that read output varies so dramatically depending on the kit version used with the sequencer is a really huge factoid that this edit would elide any reference (however indirect) to... I feel that would be rather misleading!

There are a number of easily-obtainable/usable refs available for sourcing (corrected) MiSeq reads per run output, e.g. https://www.illumina.com/systems/sequencing-platforms.html — that page also has data for HiSeq/NextSeq that contradicts the data on this page.

Now it's possible that the hardware can theoretically achieve the figures on this page, but if the actual reagent kits available for purchase and use right now are incapable of achieving those theoretical max figures just yet, then it would be a disservice to our readers to fail to mention this critical detail.

Also, it looks like there are at least five different NextSeq models available, each of which is rated for a significantly different number of max reads per run (ranging from 400 million to 26/52 billion!) — this detail makes our use of a single figure for NextSeq highly suspect at best.

IMO the article needs some major revision to explain that NextSeq is a series and differentiate the max reads per run figures into one for each major NextSeq model or model group (preferably also mentioning kit version and/or use of dual cells where applicable).

I'd link some additional refs to show even more nuance, but I've spent probably 10x the time I intended to spend on this already and really need to get back to my IRL responsibilities for a bit now. Garzfoth (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your extensive research and time and input on this, Garzfoth! I agree that the "reads per run" issues and details need to be clarified and updated before proceeding on that edit-request. I may see if I can find and provide more factual relevant details and citations that would apply in those descriptions.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering if you took a look at request #3 above -- namely, adding the fact that deSouza was already president of the company when he was made CEO. When you have time, would you mind implementing that fix? I will provide the straight wiki markup below so you can just copy and replace that short paragraph:

On July 5, 2016, Jay Flatley, who had been CEO since 1999, assumed the role of executive chairman of the board of directors. [[Francis deSouza]], who had been president of the company since 2013, took on the additional role of chief executive officer,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Stone |first1=Ken |title=Illumina likes Francis deSouza’s DNA, elevating president to CEO |url=https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2016/03/07/illumina-likes-francis-desouzas-dna-elevating-president-to-ceo/ |access-date=December 4, 2022 |work=[[Times of San Diego]] |date=March 7, 2016}}</ref> and continues to serve on the Illumina board of directors.<ref>{{Cite news|title=People|last=Staff|date=July 2016|work=[[Gen. Eng. Biotechnol. News|Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News]]|issue=13|volume=36|page=37|type=Paper}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gibney |first1=Michael |title=Illumina (ILMN) CEO Stepping Down After 17 Years |url=https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/illumina-ilmn-ceo-stepping-down-after-17-years |access-date=December 4, 2022 |work=[[FierceBiotech]] |date=March 11, 2016}}</ref>

If you can spare a couple of minutes and implement that, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again very much for your time. TM.at.illumina (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)