Comparative analysis of three studies measuring fluorescence from engineered bacterial genetic constructs.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
08
02
2021
accepted:
11
05
2021
entrez:
7
6
2021
pubmed:
8
6
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reproducibility is a key challenge of synthetic biology, but the foundation of reproducibility is only as solid as the reference materials it is built upon. Here we focus on the reproducibility of fluorescence measurements from bacteria transformed with engineered genetic constructs. This comparative analysis comprises three large interlaboratory studies using flow cytometry and plate readers, identical genetic constructs, and compatible unit calibration protocols. Across all three studies, we find similarly high precision in the calibrants used for plate readers. We also find that fluorescence measurements agree closely across the flow cytometry results and two years of plate reader results, with an average standard deviation of 1.52-fold, while the third year of plate reader results are consistently shifted by more than an order of magnitude, with an average shift of 28.9-fold. Analyzing possible sources of error indicates this shift is due to incorrect preparation of the fluorescein calibrant. These findings suggest that measuring fluorescence from engineered constructs is highly reproducible, but also that there is a critical need for access to quality controlled fluorescent calibrants for plate readers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34097703
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252263
pii: PONE-D-21-04191
pmc: PMC8183995
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0252263Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors of this manuscript have read the journal’s policy and have the following competing interests: The authors received no specific commercial funding for this work. The following authors are employed by for-profit companies: Jacob Beal is employed by Raytheon BBN Technologies; Markus Gershater and Vishal Sanchania are employed by Synthace, and their work on this paper was thus indirectly supported by their salaries. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009 Jun;10(6):410-22
pubmed: 19461664
J Biol Eng. 2009 Mar 20;3:4
pubmed: 19298678
Cytometry A. 2012 Sep;81(9):785-96
pubmed: 22915363
Bioessays. 2013 Dec;35(12):1050-5
pubmed: 24114984
Trends Biotechnol. 2018 Sep;36(9):869-871
pubmed: 29880229
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 21;13(6):e0199432
pubmed: 29928012
Cytometry A. 2018 Nov;93(11):1087-1091
pubmed: 30244531
ACS Synth Biol. 2019 Jul 19;8(7):1524-1529
pubmed: 31053031
Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 13;6:38828
pubmed: 27958314
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 03;11(3):e0150182
pubmed: 26937966
PLoS Biol. 2015 Dec 03;13(12):e1002310
pubmed: 26633141
Commun Biol. 2020 Sep 17;3(1):512
pubmed: 32943734
Nature. 2010 Jan 21;463(7279):288-90
pubmed: 20090726
Cytometry A. 2008 Apr;73(4):279-88
pubmed: 18163471
ACS Synth Biol. 2016 Jun 17;5(6):498-506
pubmed: 27111421
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;14:155-78
pubmed: 22577777