Let's please stop calling it NGS
Can we all agree that this is 2016 and next-generation sequencing is really just sequencing at this point?
Seriously, I was in college when NGS was becoming a thing. In techno-geological terms, that was the Cretaceous. Yet over a decade later, this super-vague term is somehow still stuck in our collective consciousness.
I'm not the one to say what is the real next generation of sequencing, maybe Nanopore and all that exotic long-read tech. My point is that calling the current generation of sequencing technology next-gen or NGS is embarrassingly retrograde and we should all stop*.
*I'm sure we have some old articles in our docs that use the term NGS, if you point them out to me I'll fix them.
Of course, there's still Sanger sequencing and we want to be able to tell the difference -- but really, isn't it Sanger that is the oddball now, and the rest is just regular sequencing? Well, if we must -- hey look we have a technically-accurate term, it's called high-throughput sequencing. It even comes with a reasonably snappy three-letter abbreviation to slap in titles and on posters where space is at a premium: HTS (putting the hts in htsjdk).
Alright, rant over. Until next time.