Sample Management
Figure 4: Level of satisfaction with quality and chain of custody tracking technologies
Scanning of linear 1D barcodes Scanning of 2D barcodes
Human readable machine printed labels Micro-electro-mechanical systems
(eg Bluechiip MEMS-ID Smart Chips) Micro-transponder ID
(eg Brooks p-chip technology) Radio frequency identification
tags (eg Cryogatt RFID)
Hand written labels Thinfilm RF Memory Labels
© HTStec 2016 3.09 2.31
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 MEAN RATING SCALE 1 to 5, where 1 = dissatisfied and 5 = highly satisfied
4.00 3.74 3.57
3.50 3.50
3.36
lifecycle and ‘outside set range’ flags assigned at the sample or transport container level to alert the end- user of potential storage temperature fluctuations that could impact quality. Ultimately such an approach might facilitate the stratification of sam- ples into fit-for-purpose categories. In October 2016, HTStec undertook a market survey on the emerging requirements for ID track- ing and maintaining the quality of stored samples1. The objectives of the survey were to understand current methods used for ID tracking of stored samples, the importance of sample quality and of approaches used to maintain quality, and to estab- lish potential interest in new sample ID and quality tracking technologies. In this article highlights from the market survey are reported and the find- ings are discussed together with vendor updates on the latest on sample tracking technology and new tools for maintaining sample quality.
Figure 5: Extent to which obstacles limit respondents’ use of stored samples
Freeze/thaw cycles cause a sacrifice in sample quality
Inability to rapidly locate samples Cost to validate sample quality
Not able to quantify sample quality or a means to correct the problem
Uncertainty of sample quality once located
Sample ID not easily readable or missing
Inability to dispense small amounts of sample
Sample ID bar code is a ‘no read’ due to frost or ice
Hydration causes a change in the desired concentration
2.33 2.34
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 MEAN RATING SCALE 1 to 5, where 1 = not limiting and 5 = major limitation
© HTStec 2016 2.61 3.26 3.18 3.11
2.88 2.93 2.95
Main applications of stored samples The main application or intended use of stored samples by most (55%) respondents surveyed was biomarker research. This was followed by 47% drug discovery and screening; 41% translational research; and 41% genomic research. Least used applications include agrochemical research, human identification (forensics) and veterinary research (Figure 1).
Current approach to sample tracking ID and quality verification
Figure 6: Problem perceived as most damaging to respondents’ expected use of stored samples
Problematic sample identification 38%
Poor sample quality causing erroneous downstream analytical results 62%
© HTStec 2016
How respondents track their samples today to ensure reliable information, location and quality is presented in Figure 2. This showed that survey respondents most used human readable printed labels to track their samples today (53% using). This was closely followed by enter data into Excel or Access type of database (51% using); scanning 2D barcodes (43% using); and then scanning lin- ear 1D barcodes (39%). Current implementation of newer tracking technologies (eg RFID, p-chip and MEMS-ID) among survey respondents was minimal (Figure 2). With respect to verifying the quality of their stored samples, most survey respondents either perform an incoming quality audit prior to sample storage or a quality audit is performed when a sample is requested from the store. All other veri- fication approaches were only used by a minority of respondents (Figure 3). Survey respondents’ level of satisfaction with quality and chain of custody tracking technologies was rated highest (most satisfied) with scanning of 2D barcodes, and then scanning of linear 1D
32 Drug Discovery World Summer 2017
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72