![]() ![]() You can download the UINI specification as a PDF, online. If you've been operating for any length of time, you may have identifier mapping solutions in place, already. This issue is not unique to the UINI scheme. Although, whatever scheme you adopt, there will be issues related to historical data and identifier mapping. If you operate a LIMS, pipeline, or databank, you can standardize on the UINI scheme to refer to all classes of data. The UINI scheme avoids this practice, because it would constitute malpractice in the broader contexts to which the UINI scheme pertains. Encoding data within identifiers is suitable for insular groups of humans who are working manually, so the practice refuses to die and is widely misapplied everywhere else. For reasons too numerous to list here, encoding data within identifiers is generally a terrible idea. A UINI is a sequence of numbers and letters. The UINI scheme does NOT encode data within the identifier itself. Depending on your specific requirements, barcodes can sometimes be printed on standard printers with free or inexpensive software. Barcode scanners that emulate computer keyboards are now available and require little in the way of custom software integration. If you are in charge of an enterprise, it will probably be cheaper to deploy barcode scanners in your wet labs, than hire legions of computer programmers to cope with quirky, inward-looking identifier schemes. For these reasons, and more, the UINI scheme favors automated processing over manual human processing. We have already seen the advent of robotic wet labs and robotic sample libraries. I love humans, but they usually dislike manual data entry they do it slowly and inaccurately. The UINI scheme is more suited to computers than humans. There is currently no standard barcode format for UINIs, perhaps you can suggest one, or offer feedback to the community if you adopt UINIs in your LIMS. However, it is not widely used, and would surely benefit from peer review, public ridicule, or whatever. It requires no centralized administration. Eliminate idiosyncratic human affordances which will soon become immaterial due to automation.Remain viable as an identifier scheme for a period of decades.Provide for efficient computation and transcoding by machines.Provide for identification of relatively large numbers of items.Allow independent teams of scientists to merge and share data with databanks.Allow universal tracking of samples and organisms through the wet lab, to the products of in silico analysis.I recommend the Unified Informatic Identifier (UINI) scheme. So what's the chosen system on your facility ? Any regrets or suggestions ? Or, against the non-adhoc mantras (which I agree to the fullest):Ī DIY labeling schema using standard UPC/EAN barcoding systems: The requirements may appear obvious but need mentioning:ġ) Unique identifiers: We don't want any ID collisions downstream.Ģ) Physical barcoding (if any) should fit on all tube shapes.ģ) Informative labels vs simplicity: 3.1) Is it advisable or useful to add metadata on the Unique identifier such as RNA/DNA/other sample ?ģ.2) Or just a straight random but human-readable string ?ģ.3) Which is the optimal length for those ?Ĥ) Easiest input for lab people: administrative burden such as relabeling or misreadings should be reduced to the minimum expression. ![]() Is there any consensus within the LIMS/bioinformatics community regarding the identification and phyisical labeling of biological samples ? There's a seemingly trivial question that has been floating around in our lab for quite some time now, and it relates to proper LIMS sample tracking. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |