Hi David,

Our lab uses a QX100 ddPCR platform from Bio-Rad (now QX200). At the time it was the only available option. However, I can offer some advice on its usability.

As you may know, bio-rad uses droplets to perform ddPCR, a process on which they are continuously improving upon. The new cartridge designs can, in our experience, reliably and reproducibly partition samples. Although the process is more labor-intensive (and to some extent, more prone to user error), we did welcome the added flexibility of using such a system. Indeed, this platform has allowed us to develop, validate and perform clinical assays that would otherwise have been difficult to achieve on these other "automated" platforms.

The Quantstudio 3D instrument is a bit reminiscent of the platform pioneered by Fluidigm. In these case, the partition is done geographically. In many cases, the yes/no readouts are sufficient, but in cases where samples would need to be recovered, these platforms would have great difficulty in achieving this, compared to emulsion-based systems. However, for most clinical applications, these instruments are often very useful.

Raindance is also another promising company that is currently trying to enter the market of droplet-based digital PCR detection, although they currently offer fee-per-service options rather than instruments themselves. However, according to their documentation, they can achieve partition levels that dwarf the other platforms, providing there is a need for such high levels.

The other aspects to consider, in my opinion, are not only the capabilities of these various systems, but perhaps more importantly, the cost of the consumables and reagents, especially when compared to NGS platforms that are constantly becoming more affordable.

Ultimately, the balance between flexibility and ease-of-use would have to be weighed for any particular application. In our case, we required the flexibility, albeit a steeper learning curve.

Here in South America QX200 this $180 456....Includes only: A reader Droplet oil (1863004), a droplet generation oil (186305) Buffer 2X Control Kit (1863052) ddPCR Supermix 2X (1863010). What is it that more is spent?

I've heard that BioRad is reducing prices (very) substantially (for the QX200) to outcompete LifeTechnologies, is that true?

Can anyone provide me cost comparison between QX200 and  Quantstudio 3D.

Thanks

Hi Rupesh, 

The QS3D costs around half of what the Bio-Rad system costs. If you'd like more info send me a message at [email protected], and I'd be happy to connect you with your local sales rep for additional information. 

Thanks, 

Kevin

Can someone provide the costs and features comparision of both DDPCR of Biorad and QuantStudio3D??

Hi David,

In our lab we have two Bio-Rad's machines (QX100 and 200) a Fluidigm Biomark HD and have also had the chance to test Quantstudio 3D and Stilla's Naica platform.

Overall, regarding the usability and throughput, the Bio-Rad's system is the one I prefer. We have tested duplex assays on QX100 and QS3D side by side and separation of clusters on QS3D was rather poor. However, if you do not plan to run a lot of samples per run, even QS3D might be a good choice looking from the cost perspective.

Dear network,

if you´re interested in an innovative & new approach to digital droplet PCR, please check out the NAICA system from STILLA Technologies. It´s the fastest system on the market, including a 3-color detection and the capability of recovering the droplets after read-out for downstream applications. Learn more at www.stillatechnologies.com

Best wishes, Oliver

Dear all,

in our lab we have a Quantstudio3D. We know also other platforms like BioRad, Stilla, Fluidigm and QuantStudio 12 Flex with Open Array.

Honestly speaking if you have a small number of samples per day, less than 96 per day the platform for you is QST3D. Price performance for small amount of samples is strongly on QST3d side (price of the instrument, price per reaction). Second majority of assay's from ABI now Thermo Fisher Scientific work well with no additional optimization, like 90 -95 %. But yes, sometimes for some assays additional optimization is a MUST. So regarding the Quality of the data from results between QST3D and BioRad (others as well) I have to say that data is dependent on the fine optimization. You can even find the scientific articles which showed that systems on the digital market are more or less comparable. The entering price of the QST3D instrument is more than half lower compared to the BioRad droplet platform. If you have more than 96 samples per day or ca 10000 samples yearly you have to think about bigger systems (Stilla, BioRad, open Array)

Best wishes, Minka

How is the sensitivity of QST3d vs BioRad's ddPCR?

Sensitivity at both platform very much depend on concentrations and optimizations of the protocol. With both platform, we are now able to detect and quantify rare mutants at a prevalence 0.1%, with additional optimizations of the protocol you can go down to 0,05 %, even lower. (Are the measurments below 0,1 % real ??). Full Validation in such a cases is strongly recomended BR Minka

Thanks a lot Minka Kovač !!

Can anybody please share the consumbale prices for the different systems? Biorad's I found ob theire web-page, but the others?

Thanks for your help!