We’re moving the GATK website, docs and forum to a new platform. Read the full story and breakdown of key changes on this blog.
If you happen to see a question you know the answer to, please do chime in and help your fellow community members. We encourage our fourm members to be more involved, jump in and help out your fellow researchers with their questions. GATK forum is a community forum and helping each other with using GATK tools and research is the cornerstone of our success as a genomics research community.We appreciate your help!
Test-drive the GATK tools and Best Practices pipelines on Terra
Check out this blog post to learn how you can get started with GATK and try out the pipelines in preconfigured workspaces (with a user-friendly interface!) without having to install anything.
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.