Genomes-R-Us: Is BGI now Complete?

9/25/12

(Page 3 of 3)

in a phone interview that “If CGI has a healthy factory, it could crank out 1000 genomes a month—a not insignificant number.” BGI will need that capacity and more. A reliable industry source told me that the Mayo Clinic deal is expected to require sequencing of 200,000 human genomes over the next five years. Too bad for CGI that they could not hang on long enough to do all that sequencing!

Become a clinical laboratory: This is perhaps the most important reason. CGI applied in July to the U.S. government to attain status as a CLIA lab. The decision, expected to be positive, should come in late 2012 or early 2013. The decision to buy CGI echoes the recent $50 million acquisition of former personal genomics company Navigenics by the second-largest sequencing manufacturer Life Technologies (NASDAQ LIFE). In its acquisition announcement, LifeTech declared that it will shut down the Navigenics consumer business while maintaining its CLIA lab. (Illumina has had a CLIA lab since 2009).

Growing up and being clinical

If sequencing goes clinical, BGI will be able to play sooner and better based on its pickup of CGI. Although BGI already has a U.S. sales presence, it has no way of serving clinical customers in the United States. If the CLIA lab designation comes through, then BGI will be able to sell clinical sequencing right away. One of the immediate drivers of the deal may have been Illumina’s predicted hesitancy (according to my industry sources) to sell clinical-rated instruments to BGI rather than research-only instruments once Illumina receives its expected 510(k) clearance from FDA.

There is also a cultural aspect. BGI has built a stellar reputation as a provider of genome sequence data. But it is not a U.S. company. By keeping CGI up and running as a U.S. subsidiary, BGI can—assuming that the deal goes through—sell its services more easily as it competes with U.S. players like Illumina and LifeTech.

The race for improved sequencing hardware will not slow down. But as this acquisition shows, the more interesting battlefield, at least for the healthcare field, is in the interpretation of clinically obtained genomic data. The same week that CGI was acquired, Foundation Medicine secured a $42.5 million financing (funded in part by major clinical diagnostics players Roche and Laboratory Corporation of America) to pursue forward-looking genomic medicine in oncology; and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center announced an up to $3 billion “Moon Shots” initiative to significantly improve cancer care outcomes, in part by paying closer attention to genomic data.

Clinical sequencing is coming, first in diagnosing especially pediatric diseases of unknown origin and in oncology, then later in gastrointestinal disease (gut microbes…), and perhaps even, much later, in population screening. It just (barely) did not arrive in time to make a success of Complete Genomics. I suspect that BGI and its patient investors will have a better chance.

Steve Dickman is a former venture capitalist and the CEO of boutique consulting firm CBT Advisors as well as the author of the blog Boston Biotech Watch. Follow @

Single Page Currently on Page: 1 2 3 previous page

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

  • http://twitter.com/Nanostring Nanostring Founder

    Author:
    “Complete, founded in 2005, had early on identified a superior business model ”

    Could you, please, elaborate what you mean by that? There is nothing new or unique, and certainly nothing superior in the service business model. There had always been service shops in sequencing but none have prospered exceptionally. Perhaps the best early example was Lynx Therapeutics – the mother of all so called “next-gen” platforms, that came from Sydney Brenner’s lab – which went nowhere, among many others.

    This has always been and still is an instrument business. If we look at your article, you say that BGI is doing great, sequencing 10-20K enomes last year. OK great, but at $4K per pop, that’s $40-80M in revenue. Compare that with ILMN, which had close to a $1B in sales and you see that we are talking different orders of magnitude.

    CGI’s story is much simpler, indeed: a CEO who was an industry outsider (came from online video background) and who was (1) talking-up misleading nonsense about millions and gazillions of genomes sequenced,(2) enjoyed the support of the VCs on the Board (particularly his buddy Chad Waite) (3) earned tons of money for himself while the Board was watching and protecting him, while (4) the investing public (incl. pensions funds, etc.) lost tens of million$$.

    Simple story of fleecing the public market, using a crony Board as cover, same story you see everywhere, sadly…

    • Steve Dickman

      I see the future of sequencing not in the boxes (commodifying…) but in the data. IBM would have died as Microsoft rose had IBM’s main business been in PCs. And now look at Compaq/HP and Dell. They ARE dying. The success of Apple, which made itself about software and sales, speaks for itself. ILMN apparently agrees with me, given its recent move into offering sequencing services as well as boxes.

  • http://twitter.com/Nanostring Nanostring Founder

    Author:
    “Complete, founded in 2005, had early on identified a superior business model ”
    Could you, please, elaborate what you mean by that? There is nothing new or unique, and certainly nothing superior in the service business model. There had always been service shops in sequencing but none have prospered exceptionally. Perhaps the best early example was Lynx Therapeutics – the mother of all so called “next-gen” platforms, that came from Sydney Brenner’s lab – which went nowhere, among many others.
    This has always been and still is an instrument business. If we look at your article, you say that BGI is doing great, sequencing 10-20K genomes last year. OK great, but at $4K per pop, that’s $40-80M in revenue. Compare that with ILMN, which had close to a $1B in sales and you see that we are talking different orders of magnitude.
    CGI’s story is much simpler, indeed: a CEO who was an industry outsider (came from online video background) and who was (1) talking-up misleading nonsense about millions and gazillions of genomes sequenced,(2) enjoyed the support of the VCs on the Board (particularly his buddy Chad Waite) (3) earned tons of money for himself while the Board was watching and protecting him, while (4) the investing public (incl. pensions funds, etc.) lost tens of million$$.
    Simple story of fleecing the public market, using a crony Board as cover, same story you see everywhere, sadly…

  • Crooks Inc

    This is just the story of a totally incompetent, borderline fraudulent CEO in Cliff Reid. Why was he put in charge? Why was he LEFT in charge when it was clear he was unable to execute? Those claims of a million genomes — where are they? Any correct decisions made? Nope. Last I read Complete Genomics had a BACKLOG of genomes to sequence, exemplifying absolutely pathetic planning.

    I’m surprised there’s no lawsuit filed…yet.

    • http://twitter.com/Nanostring Nanostring Founder

      Well, you shouldn’t be surprised anymore. Two lawsuits filed yesterday:
      http://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/shareholder-lawsuits-seek-stop-bgis-buy-complete-genomics

      I should say that Drmanac is a sequencing legend, and the technology was most likely very good. This is just truly horrible job done on shareholders (again, including pension funds, VC’s own LPs, etc.) by a crony Board/CEO…

      From one of the lawsuits:”certain of the Company’s named executive officers and board members
      will receive significant compensation in the form of severance payments
      and accelerated vesting of stock options and restricted stock – benefits
      that are not otherwise available to” shareholders” … and that’s after years of sucking down fat salaries and bonuses. I think Reid’s 2010 compensation was $1.8Mln and they never disclosed 2011…

      Like I said, your regular fleecing of the public investor by a crony Board and CEO.

    • Kenneth Rubenstein

      Reid is fine. The problem is part of a typically premature Silicon Valley VC mini-feeding frenzy. Occasionally they strike oil. More usually, they come up dry. Someday, whole genome sequencing may prove its value, but that’s a long ways off. Sequencing instrumentation is very valuable for basic research, but that’s about it for now.

  • Kenneth Rubenstein

    When it comes to genomics, personalized medicine, and sequencing, efforts at translation of basic research are laughingly premature. Only a decade ago, our view of genes, the genome, and its relation to biology and medicine were hopelessly naive. Today we’ve uncovered a vast abyss full of unknowns that will likely take decades to unravel via basic research. Furthermore, DNA is only one piece of a much larger systems biology puzzle. It’s really ridiculously early days for any sustainable personal genome effort.