PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15230534

High-throughput automated post-processing of separation data.

Abstract

The development of an efficient method for high-throughput analysis of multiple electropherograms or chromatograms collected in series is presented. The method, encoded in a computer program designated "Cutter", utilizes batch processing for determining chromatographic figures of merit (CFOM) including peak centroid times, heights, areas, signal-to-noise ratios (S/N), variance (sigma2), skew, excess, and plate number (N) across a set of separations collected serially. The software was validated using simulated data with varying S/N, skew, and excess. The accuracy of the analysis was comparable to or improved over commercial software with area calculation relative errors (RE) below 5% for simulated data with S/N = 5. File sets containing 1300 electropherograms were analyzed in 5 min, representing a nearly 200-fold reduction in analysis time from other methods. Incorporated within the program is a novel method for automated peak deconvolution using an Empirically Transformed Gaussian function. Area measurements of deconvoluted peaks were within 3% of the true value of a simulated data set with S/N = 5 and resolution (R(S)) = 1 for equivalent peaks, and within 10% when the ratio of the overlapped peak heights was 10:1.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jonathan G Shackman, Christopher J Watson, Robert T Kennedy. 2004-06-25. High-throughput automated post-processing of separation data.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2004.04.004

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Blood component collection by apheresis.

Apheresis component collection is a rapidly growing area in the blood collection field. Several instruments with varying capabilities are available. This is a brief review of the equipment available for granulocyte and apheresis component collection and indications for their use. In the United States, granulocytes are collected with the Fenwal CS3000, Fenwal CS3000 Plus, COBE (Gambro) Spectra, Haemonetics LN9000, and Fresenius AS 104. The use of hetastarch for sedimenting agent and stimulation with G-CSF and G-CSF plus dexamethasone have substantially increased granulocyte yields. Plateletapheresis is performed in the United States on the Fenwal CS3000, Fenwal CS3000 Plus, Fenwal Amicus, COBE (Gambro) Spectra, Gambro Trima Version 4, Gambro Trima Accel (Version 5), and Haemonetics LN9000. Automated red blood cell (RBC) collections are performed with the Haemonetics MCS+LN8150, Gambro Trima Version 4, Gambro Trima Accel (Version 5), Amicus, and Baxter Alyx. The RBC can be collected concurrently (with other components) in some instruments or separately in others. Plasma is collected concurrently on several instruments. Plasmapheresis for plasma only is performed on the Fenwal Autopheresis C and Haemonetics PCS2. Granulocyte yields range from 0.46 x 10(10) to 1.0 x 10(10) for unstimulated donors and 2.1 x 10(10) to 2.6 x 10(10) for donors stimulated with dexamethasone or prednisone. The use of G-CSF and G-CSF with dexamethasone has substantially increased granulocyte yields with yields of 4.1 x 10(10) to 10.8 x 10(10) reported. Platelet collection rates of 0.045-0.115 x 10(11) plt/min have been reported. Collection efficiencies of 46-85.7% have been reported. Automated (apheresis) component collection has the advantages of controlled volumes or doses of component, efficient use of the donor, multiple components from the same donor, better inventory control, and better quality control due to less manipulation of the individual components. Disadvantages of automated component collection include the use of expensive equipment and disposables, the need for specially trained machine operators, and lower capacity to collect large volumes of blood compared to whole blood donation. The use of apheresis component collection is rapidly growing to provide the best blood components in the most efficient manner.

Automation↗

Automation of fluorescent differential display with digital readout.

Since its invention in 1992, differential display (DD) has become the most commonly used technique for identifying differentially expressed genes because of its many advantages over competing technologies such as DNA microarray, serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE), and subtractive hybridization. Despite the great impact of the method on biomedical research, there has been a lack of automation of DD technology to increase its throughput and accuracy for systematic gene expression analysis. Most of previous DD work has taken a "shot-gun" approach of identifying one gene at a time, with a limited number of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) reactions set up manually, giving DD a low-tech and low-throughput image. We have optimized the DD process with a new platform that incorporates fluorescent digital readout, automated liquid handling, and large-format gels capable of running entire 96-well plates. The resulting streamlined fluorescent DD (FDD) technology offers an unprecedented accuracy, sensitivity, and throughput in comprehensive and quantitative analysis of gene expression. These major improvements will allow researchers to find differentially expressed genes of interest, both known and novel, quickly and easily.

Automation↗

High-density sampling differential display of prokaryotic mRNAs with RAP-PCR.

A high-throughput approach to prokaryotic differential display has been developed. A large number of reverse transcription polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCR) are performed on total RNA isolated from induced and control bacterial cultures. Each RT-PCR reaction uses a single oligonucleotide primer and constitutes an independent sampling of the mRNA population. The large number of reactions performed allows the repeated sampling of the targeted polycistronic mRNA, which is clearly identified among possible false positives.

Automation↗