NGS Library Prep Β· Data Quality

Your read counts look fine.
Your data aren't.

In NGS library prep, every normalization method balances read counts after PCR β€” after the damage is already done. AutoNorm protects your sequencing data quality during amplification, so you stop losing the reads that matter.

Hero image pending "Raw Read Count Normalization Can Be Misleading" β€” two rows (post-amplification normalization vs. AutoNorm). On mobile, show only the two "Read Counts Post Filtering" panels. Caption: Same raw counts. Different usable data.

The problem

You're normalizing the wrong thing.

For years, "normalization" has meant one thing: balancing read counts so your sequencer runs evenly. Bead-based, enzymatic, CRISPR, manual β€” they all do it the same way. After PCR.

But by the time you're balancing reads, PCR has already decided your data quality. Over-amplified samples are carrying duplicates and chimeras. Under-amplified samples have already dropped out. Balancing the pool doesn't undo any of it β€” it just makes the problem invisible.

So your raw read counts look great. Your usable data, after quality filtering, tells a very different story.

"If we over-amplify, we compromise our data. If we under-amplify, we have dropouts. PCR is the biggest bottleneck." Pranav Patel, CEO, n6

The proof

Same samples. Same raw counts. This is what filtering reveals.

Raw read counts look nearly identical. Then you filter for quality β€” and post-amplification normalization can't hide it anymore.

Image 1 pending β€” from JA Raw counts vs. usable reads after filtering.
Raw read counts (left) look similar. Usable reads after filtering (right) don't.

That's not a diagram. That's our data.

We followed every read from our own 16S soil study through processing β€” trimming, then DADA2 β€” comparing fixed-cycle PCR vs AutoNorm on the exact same samples.

Read retention by amplification method across paired samples: AutoNorm retained more usable reads than fixed-cycle PCR in 58 of 64 samples.
Real samples from our 16S study β€” AutoNorm retained more usable reads than fixed-cycle PCR. 58 of 64 samples improved (95%). Credit: Data from Jouvenot et al., bioRxiv (2024). Plot generated by n6 field application scientists from the study data. Read the preprint β†’

58 / 64

samples improved (95%) β€” more reads retained through processing.

Jouvenot et al., bioRxiv 2024 (preprint)

<0.005%

residual error rate with AutoNorm.

Peer-reviewed, ASM mSphere (Mason et al., 2026)

~2Γ—

more sequences retained after denoising & chimera removal (β‰ˆ30% β†’ β‰ˆ50%).

Webinar, USDA-ARS

Even

read distribution across wildly heterogeneous sample inputs.

Multiple independent labs

How it works

Fix it at the source, not after the fact.

AutoNorm runs on iconPCRβ„’ β€” the world's first thermocycler with individually controlled wells. Instead of guessing a cycle number and hoping, iconPCR watches each reaction in real time and stops every well at exactly the right point. No over-amplification. No under-amplification. No dropouts.

The result isn't just a balanced pool. It's balanced reads plus optimal amplification for every single sample β€” which is what real normalization was always supposed to mean.

STEP 01

Amplify with real-time monitoring

Every well watched individually as it runs.

STEP 02

AutoNorm stops each well at its ideal endpoint

No sample over- or under-amplified.

STEP 03

Pool and sequence

More of what you generate is actually usable.

Works with your existing assays, reagents, and sequencers. No proprietary kits.

Respect the Read.

Every read you generate should be a read you can use. That's the standard we built iconPCR around: give every well exactly the amplification it needs, and protect data quality sample by sample β€” instead of balancing read counts after the damage is done.

Because in NGS, quality isn't something you recover in analysis. It's something you protect at PCR.

Independent evidence

Don't take our word for it.

"

Autonormalized libraries generally retained a high proportion of sequences following denoising and chimera removal, exhibited low residual error rates (<0.005%), and yielded relatively even read distributions.

Mason et al., ASM mSphere
Peer-reviewed, 2026

Read the study β†’

"

If anything, it actually improves the data quality.

Anja Mezger
SciLifeLab / National Genomics Infrastructure

Watch the talk β†’

"

AutoNormalized reactions consistently retained a higher proportion of sequences, exhibited fewer substitution-based errors, and produced more even read distributions.

PacBio
on n6 + full-length 16S

Watch the webinar β†’

Trusted across sequencing cores, research institutions, service & solution providers.

Respect the read

Stop paying to sequence data you can't use.

See what AutoNorm protects that your current normalization is quietly losing.