Engineering Biology and Automation-Replicability As a Design Principle

Overview

Journal Eng Biol

Date 2024 Dec 30

PMID 39734660

Authors

Matthieu Bultelle

Alexis Casas

Richard Kitney

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Applications in engineering biology increasingly share the need to run operations on very large numbers of biological samples. This is a direct consequence of the application of good engineering practices, the limited predictive power of current computational models and the desire to investigate very large design spaces in order to solve the hard, important problems the discipline promises to solve. Automation has been proposed as a key component for running large numbers of operations on biological samples. This is because it is strongly associated with higher throughput, and with higher replicability (thanks to the reduction of human input). The authors focus on replicability and make the point that, far from being an additional burden for automation efforts, replicability should be considered central to the design of the automated pipelines processing biological samples at scale-as trialled in biofoundries. There cannot be successful automation without effective error control. Design principles for an IT infrastructure that supports replicability are presented. Finally, the authors conclude with some perspectives regarding the evolution of automation in engineering biology. In particular, they speculate that the integration of hardware and software will show rapid progress, and offer users a degree of control and abstraction of the robotic infrastructure on a level significantly greater than experienced today.

References

Mayr L, Fuerst P . The future of high-throughput screening. J Biomol Screen. 2008; 13(6):443-8. DOI: 10.1177/1087057108319644. View

Kong F, Yuan L, Zheng Y, Chen W . Automatic liquid handling for life science: a critical review of the current state of the art. J Lab Autom. 2012; 17(3):169-85. DOI: 10.1177/2211068211435302. View

Baker M . 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 2016; 533(7604):452-4. DOI: 10.1038/533452a. View

Klumpp M, Boettcher A, Becker D, Meder G, Blank J, Leder L . Readout technologies for highly miniaturized kinase assays applicable to high-throughput screening in a 1536-well format. J Biomol Screen. 2006; 11(6):617-33. DOI: 10.1177/1087057106288444. View

Zhang R, Li J, Melendez-Alvarez J, Chen X, Sochor P, Goetz H . Topology-dependent interference of synthetic gene circuit function by growth feedback. Nat Chem Biol. 2020; 16(6):695-701. PMC: 7246135. DOI: 10.1038/s41589-020-0509-x. View

Canton B, Labno A, Endy D . Refinement and standardization of synthetic biological parts and devices. Nat Biotechnol. 2008; 26(7):787-93. DOI: 10.1038/nbt1413. View

Purnick P, Weiss R . The second wave of synthetic biology: from modules to systems. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009; 10(6):410-22. DOI: 10.1038/nrm2698. View

Smucker B, Krzywinski M, Altman N . Optimal experimental design. Nat Methods. 2018; 15(8):559-560. DOI: 10.1038/s41592-018-0083-2. View

Castle S, Grierson C, Gorochowski T . Towards an engineering theory of evolution. Nat Commun. 2021; 12(1):3326. PMC: 8185075. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-23573-3. View

10.

Naseri G, Koffas M . Application of combinatorial optimization strategies in synthetic biology. Nat Commun. 2020; 11(1):2446. PMC: 7229011. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-16175-y. View

11.

da Silva B, Krishnamurthy M . The alarming reality of medication error: a patient case and review of Pennsylvania and National data. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2016; 6(4):31758. PMC: 5016741. DOI: 10.3402/jchimp.v6.31758. View

12.

Borkowski O, Ceroni F, Stan G, Ellis T . Overloaded and stressed: whole-cell considerations for bacterial synthetic biology. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2016; 33:123-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.mib.2016.07.009. View

13.

Louden E . Scaling Up the Global COVID-19 Vaccination Program: Production, Allocation, and Distribution with an Emphasis on Equity. Yale J Biol Med. 2022; 95(3):379-387. PMC: 9511941. View

14.

Zielinski D, Gordon A, Zaks B, Erlich Y . iPipet: sample handling using a tablet. Nat Methods. 2014; 11(8):784-5. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3028. View

15.

Nikolados E, Weisse A, Ceroni F, Oyarzun D . Growth Defects and Loss-of-Function in Synthetic Gene Circuits. ACS Synth Biol. 2019; 8(6):1231-1240. DOI: 10.1021/acssynbio.8b00531. View

16.

Holland I, Davies J . Automation in the Life Science Research Laboratory. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020; 8:571777. PMC: 7691657. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.571777. View

17.

Tellechea-Luzardo J, Otero-Muras I, Goni-Moreno A, Carbonell P . Fast biofoundries: coping with the challenges of biomanufacturing. Trends Biotechnol. 2022; 40(7):831-842. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2021.12.006. View

18.

Yadav V, De Mey M, Lim C, Ajikumar P, Stephanopoulos G . The future of metabolic engineering and synthetic biology: towards a systematic practice. Metab Eng. 2012; 14(3):233-41. PMC: 3615475. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2012.02.001. View

19.

Casas A, Bultelle M, Motraghi C, Kitney R . Removing the Bottleneck: Introducing cMatch - A Lightweight Tool for Construct-Matching in Synthetic Biology. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 9:785131. PMC: 8784771. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.785131. View

20.

Ioannidis J . Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124. PMC: 1182327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. View