Automating solid-phase extraction: current aspects and future prospects.

D T Rossi; N Zhang

doi:10.1016/s0021-9673(99)00984-x

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10941669

Automating solid-phase extraction: current aspects and future prospects.

D T Rossi·N Zhang

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper reviews current trends and techniques in automated solid-phase extraction. The area has shown a dramatic growth the number of manuscripts published over the last 10 years, including applications in environmental science, food science, clinical chemistry, pharmaceutical bioanalysis, forensics, analytical biochemistry and organic synthesis. This dramatic increase of more that 100% per year can be attributed to the commercial availability of higher throughput 96-well workstations and extraction plates that allow numerous samples to be processed simultaneously. These so-called parallel-processing workstations represent the highest throughput systems currently available. The advantages and limitations of other types of systems, including discrete column systems and on-line solid-phase extraction are also discussed. Discussions of how automated solid-phase extractions can be developed, generic approaches to automated solid-phase extraction, and three noteworthy examples of automated extractions are given. The last part of the review suggests possible near- and long-term directions of automated solid-phase extraction.

Explore related subjects

Automation Chromatography, Liquid Journal Article Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

D T Rossi, N Zhang. 2000-07-14. Automating solid-phase extraction: current aspects and future prospects.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9673(99)00984-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

EVA: Evaluation of protein structure prediction servers.

EVA (http://cubic.bioc.columbia.edu/eva/) is a web server for evaluation of the accuracy of automated protein structure prediction methods. The evaluation is updated automatically each week, to cope with the large number of existing prediction servers and the constant changes in the prediction methods. EVA currently assesses servers for secondary structure prediction, contact prediction, comparative protein structure modelling and threading/fold recognition. Every day, sequences of newly available protein structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) are sent to the servers and their predictions are collected. The predictions are then compared to the experimental structures once a week; the results are published on the EVA web pages. Over time, EVA has accumulated prediction results for a large number of proteins, ranging from hundreds to thousands, depending on the prediction method. This large sample assures that methods are compared reliably. As a result, EVA provides useful information to developers as well as users of prediction methods.

Automation↗

PubMed2003

GenePublisher: Automated analysis of DNA microarray data.

GenePublisher, a system for automatic analysis of data from DNA microarray experiments, has been implemented with a web interface at http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/GenePublisher. Raw data are uploaded to the server together with a specification of the data. The server performs normalization, statistical analysis and visualization of the data. The results are run against databases of signal transduction pathways, metabolic pathways and promoter sequences in order to extract more information. The results of the entire analysis are summarized in report form and returned to the user.

Automation↗

PubMed2003

A feasibility study of the use of the AutoPap screening system as a primary screening and location-guided rescreening device.

BACKGROUND: The AutoPap 300 QC system (Tripath Imaging, Inc., Burlington, NC) is an automated device that was designed to screen conventionally prepared cervical smears and, more recently, thin-layer slide preparations. The system has been tested in large clinical trials. METHODS: A total of 14,145 cervical smears obtained from participants in the Florence screening program were eligible for the study. Smears were processed first with the AutoPap system and were classified into three different categories: 1) no further review (NFR), 2) review, and 3) process review (PR). Conventional manual reading was performed by 10 experienced cytopathologists. RESULTS: After AutoPap processing, 2398 smears were classified as NFR (16.9%), and 1818 smears were classified as PR (12.8%). Overall, there were 188 inadequate smears (1.3%) at conventional review and 125 inadequate smears (0.88%) at AutoPap review. Six-month repeat smears were prompted by 330 conventional reviews (2.3%) and by 222 AutoPap reviews (1.56%). Similarly, referral to colposcopy was prompted by 179 conventional reviews (1.2%) and by 147 AutoPap reviews (1.0%). Overall, 32 patients were diagnosed with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia as a result of assessment. Conventional reading detected 31 patients (28 patients were referred for colposcopy, and 3 patients were referred for repeat cytology), and the AutoPap system detected 30 patients (27 patients were referred for colposcopy, and 3 patients were referred for repeat cytology). CONCLUSIONS: The current experience suggested that conventional reading and AutoPap reading of cervical smears had essentially the same sensitivity, with slightly greater specificity for the AutoPap system. Thus, comparisons of the AutoPap system and conventional reading should focus mainly on cost analysis.

Automation↗