May 21, 2013
Most labs have used floor mount or bench top centrifuges for separation based assays for decades. Whether spinning samples to remove air bubbles, spinning down cellular debris or isolating supernatent, there are numerous manual access centrifuges on the market, but when it comes to automation, the choices are limited.
For a number of years, Agilent (formerly Velocity11) has offered the compact VSpin. VSpin has a two position rotor with buckets for std microplates. It can spin up to 300o rpm/ 1000g and has an automated door that allows direct access to plates using an offset robot gripper. Units can be stacked on top of each other for increased use of vertical workspace. The Optional Access2 loader can also grab the plate and present it externally to a liquid handler gripper or top loading plate mover like Twister2 or KiNEDx.
Hettich also provides a larger unit called the Rotanta 460 which can accommodate 4 plates at speeds up to 6200prm, but is a bit more of a challenge to integrate as the robot gripper fingers need to reach into the unit from the top. I have seen this done with Mitsubishi and Staubli robots and Tecan actually integrates this unit under an EVO liquid handler accessible via an open locator in the deck.
Sias’s Ixion is a compact unit, similar in size to the VSpin, however plate access (total of two) is through the top just like the Rotanta and can spin up to 2000rpm. This unit integrates nicely with Sias’ Xantus liquid handlers.
Finally, BioNex offers the HiG centrifuge which can also spin two plates. The bright orange color makes this unit hard to ignore…and a closer look shows that this unit may be the best of the bunch. With an automated lid that retracts from the top, the HiG does not need a plate loader like the VSpin as plates can be accessed by just about any robot gripper. At 5000g, BioNex claims this unit to be the fastest robot accessible centrifuge available.
Maintenance requirements for each of these devices is similar. All include high-speed motors so proper ventilation is a must. Bearings must be greased, sensors cleaned and pneumatics (door opening, plate loaders) checked for leaks. Additionally, rotors and buckets should be checked for cracks or other signs of wear. As noted in previous blogs, rotational speeds can be verified using a digital tachometer but you may need to remove covers to gain access to the rotor (kids, don’t try this at home…call a professional). As always, if you ignore that last piece of advice, don’t come crying to me when your friends make fun of you because you have a mircrotitre plate permanently embedded in your cheek…
May 14, 2013
Every Picture Tells A Story, Don’t It?
“A picture is worth a thousand words…so even at a reduced frame rate of 15FPS, one minute of video has to be worth 900,00 words.” – Me
For better or worse, advances in cellular communications aremaking the once seemly impossible, trivial. Specifically, I am referring to video communication. Just about everyone has a ‘smartphone’ these days and it is hard to find a new phone that does not include a camera. The resolution of these cameras is incredible (the Apple iPhone 5 = 8 MegaPixels) and product stunningly clear videos and images.
Video applications such as Apple’s FaceTime and Skype make face to face remote communications simple, fast and cheap. For service organizations, this has providedfield based techs with an incredible tool for diagnosing instrument failures. There are even iPhone apps that now allow users to perform thermal imaging (how cool is that…no pun intended)! Let’s face it, the pressure these on-site techs feel when faced with a failed instrument can be enormous. End user anxiety and a ticking clock only add to the stress. The ability to ‘phone a friend’, point the phone at the instrument and have a real-time conversation about such failures brings an added dimension to peer review.
On the wired side, I have visited many research labs that have added low-cost USB or Ethernet cameras to their automation systems that allow them to monitor status remotely (many times from home, over a weekend or at night). When combined with remote network access tools like PC Anywhere or LogMeIn, it is possible to deal with simple application errors and continue assays or applications that would otherwise had to wait for human to come into the lab and simple press a key. Remote observation in this fashion requires network access and must always include IT departments to prevent unauthorized access.
Still, many labs will not allow non-employee cameras or video use within their labs. Thisis short-sighted (IMO), and unfortunate. I understand the competitive nature of pharmaceutical or biotech research and the commercial implications of potentially providing competitors with a glimpse of a labs inner workings, but let’s face it…it would take a pretty savvy bunch of people to gleam something worthwhile from a phone camera. Instrument failures that render an instrument ‘down’ are generally easier to diagnose and repair, however it the aberrant or irregular failures that could benefit immensely from remote observation. Unless an instrument or system is under a service contract it can be very expensive to pay for a service tech to sit and watch for a reported failure (they always happen when the tech leaves, right?).
Most labs require non-disclosure agreements or safety training prior to granting non-employees access their labs and the time is well past to include the use of remote diagnostic tools, particularly cellular video in such protocols. Perhaps seeing is believing?
May 10, 2013
What is the opposite of TMI?
Having said that…I was a bit disappointed by a recent “Ask The Expert” interview by Tanuja Koppal, PhD. It was called “Optimizing Lab Services: Evaluating the Single-Vendor Option.” You can read the full article by clicking here.
Although there are some good insights there were some major pieces of informationmissing. For starters, it does not mention who the subject of the interview is. I will give Dr. Koppal the benefit of the doubt and assume the interviewee is not fictitious, but I have a hard time understanding why he/she would need to anonymized. Is there an MVS Mafia out there that requires a witness protection program? Secondly, all the MVS providers whom the user evaluated are also anonymized. I guess I could understand that given that many of these larger providers may have legal teams that would give any crime syndicate a scare.
In the spirit of peer review, I think it would be extremely helpful to both MVS providers and potential customers to know who this customer is and how they made the selection they did.
Who knows, using this feedback, maybe next time they need a contract, someone would be able to make them an offer they couldn’t refuse…