Cited by 103

Quantification of interlaboratory cell-free protein synthesis variability

Cole, Stephanie D., Beabout, Kathryn, Turner, Kendrick B., Smith, Zachary K., Funk, Vanessa L., Harbaugh, Svetlana V., Liem, Alvin T., Roth, Pierce A. +5 more·2019·ACS Synthetic Biology

Abstract

Cell-free protein synthesis (CFPS) platforms, once primarily a research tool to produce difficult to express proteins, are increasingly being pursued by the synthetic biology community for applications including biomanufacturing, rapid screening systems, and field-ready sensors. While consistency within individual studies is apparent in the literature, challenges with reproducing results between laboratories, or even between individuals within a laboratory, are discussed openly by practitioners. As the field continues to grow and move toward applications, a quantitative understanding of expected variability for CFPS and the relative contribution of underlying sources will become increasingly important. Here we offer the first quantitative assessment of interlaboratory variability in CFPS. Three laboratories implemented a single CFPS protocol and performed a series of exchanges, both of material and personnel, designed to quantify relative contributions to variability associated with the site, operator, cell extract preparation, and supplemental reagent preparation. We found that materials prepared at each laboratory, exchanged pairwise, and tested at each site resulted in 40.3% coefficient of variation compared to 7.64% for a single operator across days using a single set of materials. Reagent preparations contributed significantly to observed variability; extract preparations, however, surprisingly did not explain any of the observed variability, even when prepared in differ…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acssynbio.9b00178

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cole, S. D., Beabout, K., Turner, K. B., Smith, Z. K., Funk, V. L., Harbaugh, S. V., Liem, A. T., Roth, P. A., Geier, B. A., Emanuel, P. A., Walper, S. A., Chávez, J. L., & Lux, M. W.
Affiliations
  • US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Chemical Biological Center. 8198 Blackhawk Road, APG, Maryland 21010, United States
  • UES, Inc., Dayton, Ohio 45432, United States
  • Naval Research Laboratory, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20375, United States
  • Air Force Research Laboratory, 711th Human Performance Wing, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433, United States
  • DCS Corporation, 100 Walter Ward Blvd, Suite 100, Abingdon, Maryland 21009, United States
Venue
ACS Synthetic Biology
Published
2019-08-06
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
2080-2091
ISSN
2161-5063
Cited by
103
References
1
Language
en
Funders
Office of the Secretary of Defense

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review