Sample Management
barcodes. Rated lowest (most dissatisfied) with was handwritten labels. The rating of some of the more recent tracking technologies (eg RFID, p-chip and MEMS-ID) was moderately satisfied, but the num- ber of respondents familiar enough or using these technologies to respond was limited (Figure 4).
Main causes of poor sample quality Survey respondents rated freeze/thaw cycles caus- ing a sacrifice in sample quality as the main obsta- cle that most limits the use of stored samples. This was followed by cost to validate sample quality; inability to rapidly locate samples; and then not able to quantify sample quality or a means to cor- rect the problem. Rated least limiting were sample ID barcode is a ‘no read’ due to frost or ice and hydration causes a change in the desired concentra- tion (Figure 5).
The majority (63%) of survey respondents reported that poor sample quality causing erro- neous downstream analytical results was the most damaging problem to their expected use of stored samples. The remainder (38%) of the respondents reported that problematic sample identification was the most damaging problem (Figure 6). The number of times samples are exposed to a significant temperature change per day is presented in Figure 7. The median number of significant tem- perature changes survey respondents reported their samples were exposed to was one change per day. This daily change in temperature undoubtedly has an adverse effect on sample quality. Most (43%) survey respondents current use pro-
tocol adopted for stored samples in their facilities was single-use aliquots in vials, tubes or straws, etc and any remaining samples are discarded. This was followed by samples are checked in and out of our stores multiple times and we may see a loss in sam- ple quality (30%); samples can be checked in and out of stores multiple times and we are aware of no loss in sample quality (20%); and then samples are checked in and out of our stores multiple times and we know sample quality is compromised (7%) (Figure 8).
Whether stored samples were subject to stan- dardised standard operating procedures (SOPs) prior to storage is reported in Figure 9. This showed that most survey respondents prepared their samples either off-site or on-site according to strict SOPs to minimise pre-analytical variables (27% using either). This was followed by samples prepared on-site under variable conditions as they appear to be unavoidable (25% using) and then samples prepared off-site under variable conditions beyond our control (17% using).
Drug Discovery World Summer 2017
Figure 7: Number of times samples are exposed to a significant temperature change per day
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
© HTStec 2016 33% 29%
17% 10% 10%
None
1
2to3
>3
Don’t know
Figure 8: Current use protocol for stored samples adopted in respondent’s facility
Single use aliquots in vials, tubes or straws etc and any remaining samples are discarded
Samples are checked in and out of our stores multiple times and we may see a loss in sample quality
Samples can be checked in and out of stores multiple times and we are aware of no loss in sample quality
Samples are checked in and out of our stores multiple times and we know sample quality is compromised
© HTStec 2016 7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% % Responding
20% 30% 43%
Figure 9: Whether stored samples were subject to standardised SOPs prior to storage
Samples prepared on-site according to strict SOPs to minimise pre-analytical variables
Samples prepared off-site according to strict SOPs to minimise pre-analytical variables
Samples prepared on-site under variable conditions as they appear to be unavoidable
Samples prepared off-site under variable conditions beyond our control
Mix of on- and off-site acquisition with varying degrees of control over pre-analytical variables
Unknown
2% 2%
0% © HTStec 2016
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% % Responding
17% 25%
27% 27%
33
% Responding
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