Difference between revisions of "Journal:Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public–private partnership"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created stub. Saving and adding more.)
 
(Saving and adding more.)
Line 35: Line 35:


In consortia involving multidisciplinary research, the classical paper-based version of a LN is an impediment to efficient data sharing and information exchange. Most of the data from these large-scale collaborative research efforts will never exist in a hard copy format but will be generated in a digitized version. An analysis of this data can be performed by specialized software and dedicated hardware. The classical application of a LN fails in these environments. It is commonly replaced by digital reporting procedures, which can be standardized.<ref name="TDRHandbook06">{{cite web |url=http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/training-guideline-publications/handbook-quality-practices-biomedical-research/en/ |title=Handbook: Quality practices in basic biomedical research |author=Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases |publisher=World Health Organization |date=2006 |pages=122}}</ref><ref name="BosFromShared07">{{cite journal |title=From Shared Databases to Communities of Practice: A Taxonomy of Collaboratories |journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication |author=Bos, N.; Zimmerman, A.; Olson, J. et al. |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=652–672 |year=2007 |doi=10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00343.x}}</ref><ref name="SchnellTenSimp15">{{cite journal |title=Ten Simple Rules for a Computational Biologist's Laboratory Notebook |journal=PLoS Computational Biology |author=Schnell, S. |volume=11 |issue=9 |pages=e1004385 |year=2015 |doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004385 |pmid=26356732 |pmc=PMC4565690}}</ref> Besides the advantages for daily operational activities, an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) yields long-term benefits regarding data maintenance. These include, but are not limited to, items listed in Table 1.<ref name="NussbeckTheLab14">{{cite journal |title=The laboratory notebook in the 21st century: The electronic laboratory notebook would enhance good scientific practice and increase research productivity |journal=EMBO Reports |author=Nussbeck, S.Y.; Weil, P.; Menzel, J. et al. |volume=15 |issue=6 |pages=631–4 |year=2014 |doi=10.15252/embr.201338358 |pmid=24833749 |pmc=PMC4197872}}</ref> The order of mentioned points is not expressing any ranking. Besides general tasks, some specific tasks have to be facilitated, especially in the field of drug discovery. One such specific task is searching for chemical structures and substructures in a virtual library of chemical structures and compounds (see Table 1, last item in column “Potentially”). Enabling such a function in an ELN hosting reports about wet-lab work dealing with known drugs and/or compounds to be evaluated would allow dedicated information retrieval for the chemical compounds or (sub-) structures of interest.
In consortia involving multidisciplinary research, the classical paper-based version of a LN is an impediment to efficient data sharing and information exchange. Most of the data from these large-scale collaborative research efforts will never exist in a hard copy format but will be generated in a digitized version. An analysis of this data can be performed by specialized software and dedicated hardware. The classical application of a LN fails in these environments. It is commonly replaced by digital reporting procedures, which can be standardized.<ref name="TDRHandbook06">{{cite web |url=http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/training-guideline-publications/handbook-quality-practices-biomedical-research/en/ |title=Handbook: Quality practices in basic biomedical research |author=Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases |publisher=World Health Organization |date=2006 |pages=122}}</ref><ref name="BosFromShared07">{{cite journal |title=From Shared Databases to Communities of Practice: A Taxonomy of Collaboratories |journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication |author=Bos, N.; Zimmerman, A.; Olson, J. et al. |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=652–672 |year=2007 |doi=10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00343.x}}</ref><ref name="SchnellTenSimp15">{{cite journal |title=Ten Simple Rules for a Computational Biologist's Laboratory Notebook |journal=PLoS Computational Biology |author=Schnell, S. |volume=11 |issue=9 |pages=e1004385 |year=2015 |doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004385 |pmid=26356732 |pmc=PMC4565690}}</ref> Besides the advantages for daily operational activities, an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) yields long-term benefits regarding data maintenance. These include, but are not limited to, items listed in Table 1.<ref name="NussbeckTheLab14">{{cite journal |title=The laboratory notebook in the 21st century: The electronic laboratory notebook would enhance good scientific practice and increase research productivity |journal=EMBO Reports |author=Nussbeck, S.Y.; Weil, P.; Menzel, J. et al. |volume=15 |issue=6 |pages=631–4 |year=2014 |doi=10.15252/embr.201338358 |pmid=24833749 |pmc=PMC4197872}}</ref> The order of mentioned points is not expressing any ranking. Besides general tasks, some specific tasks have to be facilitated, especially in the field of drug discovery. One such specific task is searching for chemical structures and substructures in a virtual library of chemical structures and compounds (see Table 1, last item in column “Potentially”). Enabling such a function in an ELN hosting reports about wet-lab work dealing with known drugs and/or compounds to be evaluated would allow dedicated information retrieval for the chemical compounds or (sub-) structures of interest.
{|
| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"|
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="70%"
|-
  | style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;" colspan="2"|'''Table 1.''' Long-term benefits of an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) compared to a paper based LN
|-
  ! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"|Definitely
  ! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"|Potentially
|-
  | style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"|
• Create (standard) protocols for experiments<br />
• Create and share templates for experimental documentation<br />
• Share results within working groups<br />
• Amend/extend individual protocols<br />
• Full complement of data/information from one experiment is stored in one place (in an ideal world)<br />
• Storage of data from all experiments in a dedicated location<br />
• Search functionality (keywords, full text)<br />
• Protect intellectual property (IP) by timely updating of experimental data with date/time stamps<br />
  | style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"|
• Exchange protocols/standard operating procedures (SOPs)<br />
• Remote access of results/data from other working groups<br />
• Ensure transparency within projects<br />
• Discuss results online<br />
• Control of overall activity by timely planning of new experiments based on former results<br />
• Search for chemical (sub)structures within all chemical drawings in experiments<br />
|-
|}
|}
Interestingly, although essential for the success of research activities in collaborative settings, the above mentioned advantages are rarely realized by users during daily documentation activities and institutional awareness in academic environment is often lacking.
Since funding agencies and stakeholders are becoming aware of the importance of transparency and reproducibility in both experimental and computational research<ref name="SandveTen13">{{cite journal |title=Ten simple rules for reproducible computational research |journal=PLoS Computational Biology |author=Sandve, G.K.; Nekrutenko, A.; Taylor, J.; Hovig, E. |volume=9 |issue=10 |pages=e1003285 |year=2013 |doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285 |pmid=24204232 |pmc=PMC3812051}}</ref><ref name="BechhoferWhy13">{{cite journal |title=Why linked data is not enough for scientists |journal=Future Generation Computer Systems |author=Bechhofer, S.; Buchan, I.; De Roure, D. et al. |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=599-611 |year=2013 |doi=10.1016/j.future.2011.08.004}}</ref><ref name="WhiteRepro15">{{cite journal |title=Reproducible research in the study of biological coloration |journal=Animal Behaviour |author=White, T.E.; Dalrymple, R.L.; Noble, D.W.A. et al. |volume=106 |pages=51–57 |year=2015 |doi=10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.05.007}}</ref>, the use of digitalized documentation, reproducible analyses and archiving will be a common requirement for funding applications on national and international levels.<ref name="WoelfleOpen11">{{cite journal |title=Open science is a research accelerator |journal=Nature Chemistry |author=Woelfle, M.; Olliaro, P.; Todd, M.H. |volume=3 |issue=10 |pages=745-8 |year=2011 |doi=10.1038/nchem.1149 |pmid=21941234}}</ref><ref name="DFGProposals13">{{cite web |url=https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Volltexte_diverse/DFG-Safeguarding_Good_Scientific_Practice_DFG.pdf |format=PDF |title=Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice |author=Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft |date=September 2013}}</ref><ref name="DGRIH2020_17">{{cite web |url=https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf |format=PDF |title=Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 |author=Directorate-General for Research & Innovation |date=2013 |accessdate=12 September 2016}}</ref>
A typical example for a large private-public partnership is the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) ''New Drugs for Bad Bugs'' (ND4BB) program<ref name="PayneTime15">{{cite journal |title=Time for a change: addressing R&D and commercialization challenges for antibacterials |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |author=Payne, D.J.; Miller, L.F.; Findlay, D. et al. |volume=370 |issue=1670 |pages=20140086 |year=2015 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2014.0086}}</ref><ref name="KostyanevTheInno16">{{cite journal |title=The Innovative Medicines Initiative's New Drugs for Bad Bugs programme: European public-private partnerships for the development of new strategies to tackle antibiotic resistance |journal=Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy |author=Kostyanev, T.; Bonten, M.J.; O'Brien, S. et al. |volume=71 |issue=2 |pages=290-5 |year=2016 |doi=10.1093/jac/dkv339 |pmid=26568581}}</ref> (see Fig. 1 for details). The program’s objective is to combat antibiotic resistance in Europe by tackling the scientific, regulatory, and business challenges that are hampering the development of new antibiotics.
[[File:Fig1 Vaas PeerJCompSci2016 2.jpg|900px]]
{{clear}}
{|
| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"|
{| border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="900px"
|-
  | style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"| <blockquote>'''Figure 1.''' Structural outline of the New Drugs for Bad Bugs (ND4BB) framework</blockquote>
|-
|}
|}
The TRANSLOCATION consortium focus on (i) improving the understanding of the overall permeability of Gram-negative bacteria, and (ii) enhancing the efficiency of antibiotic research and development through knowledge sharing, data sharing and integrated analysis. To meet such complex needs, the TRANSLOCATION consortium was established as a multinational and multisite public–private partnership (PPP) with 15 academic partners, five pharmaceutical companies and seven small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).<ref name="RexND4BB14">{{cite journal |title=ND4BB: addressing the antimicrobial resistance crisis |journal=Nature Reviews Microbiology |author=Rex, J.H. |volume=12 |pages=231–32 |year=2014 |doi=10.1038/nrmicro3245}}</ref><ref name="StavengerTrans14">{{cite journal |title=TRANSLOCATION project: How to get good drugs into bad bugs |journal=Science Translational Medicine |author=Stavenger, R.A.; Winterhalter, M. |volume=6 |issue=228 |pages=228ed7 |year=2014 |doi=10.1126/scitranslmed.3008605 |pmid=24648337}}</ref><ref name="ND4BBTranslocation">{{cite web |url=http://translocation.eu/ |title=ND4BB Translocation |publisher=ND4BB |accessdate=22 September 2015}}</ref>
In this article we describe the process of selecting and implementing an ELN in the context of the multisite PPP project TRANSLOCATION, comprising about 90 bench scientists in total. Furthermore we present the results from a survey evaluating the users’ experiences and the benefit for the project two years post-implementation. Based on our experiences, the specific needs in a PPP setting are summarized and lessons learned will be reviewed. As a result, we propose recommendations to assist future users avoiding pitfalls when selecting and implementing ELN software.


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 16:46, 12 September 2017

Full article title Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public–private partnership
Journal PeerJ Computer Science
Author(s) Vaas​, Lea A.I.; Witt​, Gesa; Windshügel, Björn; Bosin, Andrea; Serra, Giovanni; Bruengger, Adrian; Winterhalter, Mathias; Gribbon, Philip; Levy-Petelinkar, Cindy J.; Kohler, Manfred
Author affiliation(s) Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology, University of Cagliari, Basilea Pharmaceutica International AG, Jacobs University Bremen, GlaxoSmithKline
Primary contact Email: manfred dot kohler at ime dot fraunhofer dot de
Editors Baker, Mary
Year published 2016
Volume and issue 2
Page(s) e83
DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.83
ISSN 2167-8359
Distribution license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Website https://peerj.com/articles/cs-83/
Download https://peerj.com/articles/cs-83.pdf (PDF)

Abstract

This report shares the experience during selection, implementation and maintenance phases of an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) in a public–private partnership project and comments on users' feedback. In particular, we address which time constraints for roll-out of an ELN exist in granted projects and which benefits and/or restrictions come with out-of-the-box solutions. We discuss several options for the implementation of support functions and potential advantages of open-access solutions. Connected to that, we identified willingness and a vivid culture of data sharing as the major item leading to success or failure of collaborative research activities. The feedback from users turned out to be the only angle for driving technical improvements, but also exhibited high efficiency. Based on these experiences, we describe best practices for future projects on implementation and support of an ELN supporting a diverse, multidisciplinary user group based in academia, NGOs, and/or for-profit corporations located in multiple time zones.

Keywords: public–private partnership, open access, Innovative Medicines Initiative, electronic laboratory notebook, New Drugs for Bad Bugs, IMI, PPP, ND4BB, collaboration, sharing information

Introduction

Laboratory notebooks (LNs) are vital documents of laboratory work in all fields of experimental research. The LN is used to document experimental plans, procedures, results and considerations based on these outcomes. The proper documentation establishes the precedence of results, particularly for inventions of intellectual property (IP). The LN provides the main evidence in the event of disputes relating to scientific publications or patent application. A well-established routine for documentation discourages data falsification by ensuring the integrity of the entries in terms of time, authorship, and content.[1] LNs must be complete, clear, unambiguous and secure. A remarkable example is Alexander Fleming’s documentation, leading to the discovery of penicillin.[2]

The recent development of many novel technologies brought up new platforms in life sciences requiring specialized knowledge. As an example, next-generation sequencing and protein structure determination are generating datasets, which are becoming increasingly prevalent especially in molecular life sciences.[3] The combination and interpretation of these data requires experts from different research areas[4], leading to large research consortia.

In consortia involving multidisciplinary research, the classical paper-based version of a LN is an impediment to efficient data sharing and information exchange. Most of the data from these large-scale collaborative research efforts will never exist in a hard copy format but will be generated in a digitized version. An analysis of this data can be performed by specialized software and dedicated hardware. The classical application of a LN fails in these environments. It is commonly replaced by digital reporting procedures, which can be standardized.[5][6][7] Besides the advantages for daily operational activities, an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) yields long-term benefits regarding data maintenance. These include, but are not limited to, items listed in Table 1.[8] The order of mentioned points is not expressing any ranking. Besides general tasks, some specific tasks have to be facilitated, especially in the field of drug discovery. One such specific task is searching for chemical structures and substructures in a virtual library of chemical structures and compounds (see Table 1, last item in column “Potentially”). Enabling such a function in an ELN hosting reports about wet-lab work dealing with known drugs and/or compounds to be evaluated would allow dedicated information retrieval for the chemical compounds or (sub-) structures of interest.

Table 1. Long-term benefits of an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) compared to a paper based LN
Definitely Potentially

• Create (standard) protocols for experiments
• Create and share templates for experimental documentation
• Share results within working groups
• Amend/extend individual protocols
• Full complement of data/information from one experiment is stored in one place (in an ideal world)
• Storage of data from all experiments in a dedicated location
• Search functionality (keywords, full text)
• Protect intellectual property (IP) by timely updating of experimental data with date/time stamps

• Exchange protocols/standard operating procedures (SOPs)
• Remote access of results/data from other working groups
• Ensure transparency within projects
• Discuss results online
• Control of overall activity by timely planning of new experiments based on former results
• Search for chemical (sub)structures within all chemical drawings in experiments

Interestingly, although essential for the success of research activities in collaborative settings, the above mentioned advantages are rarely realized by users during daily documentation activities and institutional awareness in academic environment is often lacking.

Since funding agencies and stakeholders are becoming aware of the importance of transparency and reproducibility in both experimental and computational research[9][10][11], the use of digitalized documentation, reproducible analyses and archiving will be a common requirement for funding applications on national and international levels.[12][13][14]

A typical example for a large private-public partnership is the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) New Drugs for Bad Bugs (ND4BB) program[15][16] (see Fig. 1 for details). The program’s objective is to combat antibiotic resistance in Europe by tackling the scientific, regulatory, and business challenges that are hampering the development of new antibiotics.

Fig1 Vaas PeerJCompSci2016 2.jpg

Figure 1. Structural outline of the New Drugs for Bad Bugs (ND4BB) framework

The TRANSLOCATION consortium focus on (i) improving the understanding of the overall permeability of Gram-negative bacteria, and (ii) enhancing the efficiency of antibiotic research and development through knowledge sharing, data sharing and integrated analysis. To meet such complex needs, the TRANSLOCATION consortium was established as a multinational and multisite public–private partnership (PPP) with 15 academic partners, five pharmaceutical companies and seven small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).[17][18][19]

In this article we describe the process of selecting and implementing an ELN in the context of the multisite PPP project TRANSLOCATION, comprising about 90 bench scientists in total. Furthermore we present the results from a survey evaluating the users’ experiences and the benefit for the project two years post-implementation. Based on our experiences, the specific needs in a PPP setting are summarized and lessons learned will be reviewed. As a result, we propose recommendations to assist future users avoiding pitfalls when selecting and implementing ELN software.

References

  1. Myers, J.D. (10 July 2014). "Collaborative Electronic Notebooks as Electronic Records: Design Issues for the Secure Electronic Laboratory Notebook (ELN)". ResearchGate. ResearchGate GmbH. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228705896_Collaborative_electronic_notebooks_as_electronic_records_Design_issues_for_the_secure_electronic_laboratory_notebook_eln. Retrieved 08 January 2015. 
  2. Bennett, J.W.; Chung, K.T. (2001). "Alexander Fleming and the discovery of penicillin". Advances in Applied Microbiology 49: 163–84. doi:10.1016/S0065-2164(01)49013-7. PMID 11757350. 
  3. Du, P.; Kofman, J.A. (2007). "Electronic Laboratory Notebooks in Pharmaceutical R&D: On the Road to Maturity". JALA 12 (3): 157–65. doi:10.1016/j.jala.2007.01.001. 
  4. Ioannidis, J.P.; Greenland, S.; Hlatky, M.A. et al. (2014). "Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis". Lancet 383 (9912): 166–75. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8. PMC PMC4697939. PMID 24411645. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4697939. 
  5. Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (2006). "Handbook: Quality practices in basic biomedical research". World Health Organization. pp. 122. http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/training-guideline-publications/handbook-quality-practices-biomedical-research/en/. 
  6. Bos, N.; Zimmerman, A.; Olson, J. et al. (2007). "From Shared Databases to Communities of Practice: A Taxonomy of Collaboratories". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (2): 652–672. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00343.x. 
  7. Schnell, S. (2015). "Ten Simple Rules for a Computational Biologist's Laboratory Notebook". PLoS Computational Biology 11 (9): e1004385. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004385. PMC PMC4565690. PMID 26356732. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4565690. 
  8. Nussbeck, S.Y.; Weil, P.; Menzel, J. et al. (2014). "The laboratory notebook in the 21st century: The electronic laboratory notebook would enhance good scientific practice and increase research productivity". EMBO Reports 15 (6): 631–4. doi:10.15252/embr.201338358. PMC PMC4197872. PMID 24833749. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4197872. 
  9. Sandve, G.K.; Nekrutenko, A.; Taylor, J.; Hovig, E. (2013). "Ten simple rules for reproducible computational research". PLoS Computational Biology 9 (10): e1003285. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285. PMC PMC3812051. PMID 24204232. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3812051. 
  10. Bechhofer, S.; Buchan, I.; De Roure, D. et al. (2013). "Why linked data is not enough for scientists". Future Generation Computer Systems 29 (2): 599-611. doi:10.1016/j.future.2011.08.004. 
  11. White, T.E.; Dalrymple, R.L.; Noble, D.W.A. et al. (2015). "Reproducible research in the study of biological coloration". Animal Behaviour 106: 51–57. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.05.007. 
  12. Woelfle, M.; Olliaro, P.; Todd, M.H. (2011). "Open science is a research accelerator". Nature Chemistry 3 (10): 745-8. doi:10.1038/nchem.1149. PMID 21941234. 
  13. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (September 2013). "Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice" (PDF). https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Volltexte_diverse/DFG-Safeguarding_Good_Scientific_Practice_DFG.pdf. 
  14. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation (2013). "Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020" (PDF). https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf. Retrieved 12 September 2016. 
  15. Payne, D.J.; Miller, L.F.; Findlay, D. et al. (2015). "Time for a change: addressing R&D and commercialization challenges for antibacterials". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370 (1670): 20140086. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0086. 
  16. Kostyanev, T.; Bonten, M.J.; O'Brien, S. et al. (2016). "The Innovative Medicines Initiative's New Drugs for Bad Bugs programme: European public-private partnerships for the development of new strategies to tackle antibiotic resistance". Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 71 (2): 290-5. doi:10.1093/jac/dkv339. PMID 26568581. 
  17. Rex, J.H. (2014). "ND4BB: addressing the antimicrobial resistance crisis". Nature Reviews Microbiology 12: 231–32. doi:10.1038/nrmicro3245. 
  18. Stavenger, R.A.; Winterhalter, M. (2014). "TRANSLOCATION project: How to get good drugs into bad bugs". Science Translational Medicine 6 (228): 228ed7. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3008605. PMID 24648337. 
  19. "ND4BB Translocation". ND4BB. http://translocation.eu/. Retrieved 22 September 2015. 

Notes

This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation, including regionalizing spelling. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original lists references in alphabetical order; this version lists them in order of appearance due to the nature of the wiki.