Tag Archives: automated platforms

“The chicken and the egg”

Confessions of a Microbiologist,

I am currently at the ECCMID conference in Copenhagen. So far, and in my humble opinion it has been better than last year’s ECCMID in Barcelona; better conference facilities, more seating, nicer food, better use of Information Technology etc.. Even though the conference is only in its second day it has already provoked several ideas and concepts for me to work on when I get back to New Zealand.

One continuing issue I have though is the difficulty in differentiating between the sessions sponsored by industry and the independent sessions. It is an important distinction to make, for obvious reasons.

During a couple of the industry sponsored sessions, both involving the promotion of new automated platforms, I have heard the following quote: “The shortage of skilled scientists has prompted the need for automation”, or something to that effect.

Hmmm.., I am not buying that one.

Automation in the world of microbiology has several benefits (see this article for more), relating mainly to standardisation of processes and reduction of errors. You can also be sure that automation is cost effective compared to the traditional methods, otherwise it would not happen.

These, along with the technological advances that have made automation feasible, are the principle drivers in this direction.

The lack of skilled staff I suspect is not one of the main drivers, but is however still used as an “excuse” for automation, particularly by the companies manufacturing and promoting these systems. 

What automation certainly does do is reduce the number of skilled staff required to process the samples. It also changes the skill sets needed by both incumbent and trainee scientists. 

So for me, in this conundrum, the automation comes first, and the effects on scientists are the consequence, not the other way round…..

Michael

 

“Nothing lasts forever”

The Art of Microbiology, The Science of Microbiology, , ,

routine_swab_small_500x94

Take a look at the picture above. It is the traditional wound swab. It seems to have been around since the beginning of time.

But not for much longer…. Why?

These swabs are slowly but surely being replaced by swabs that are not only better, but are also adapted/designed to be placed on automated platforms.

The new swabs look something like this:

ecouvillon-milieu-transport-amies-68105-7752837

So what are the differences?

  • The transport medium is liquid. This allows a more standardised concentration of bacteria throughout the transport medium. It also allows the sample to be pipetted out (either manually or on an automated platform) onto the plates, again more standardised than taking the swab out of the gel and directly inoculating onto a plate. In addition, the liquid media allows fastidious organisms such as N. gonorrhoeae to survive for longer.
  • The swab has a screw top cap: This allows automated de-capping in a de-capping instrument.
  • The swab is the same size as a blood collection tube. This is intentional so that such swabs can be placed on automated tracks and automated inoculation platforms.
  • The swab is “flocked”. This means it is made of 1000’s of perpendicular strands of nylon or some other synthetic material. This allows better pick-up and adherence of bacteria compared to traditional cotton swabs.
"Flocked" swab
“Flocked” swab

This change to the “new” swabs may already have happened in your area or region. As automated microbiology processing platforms become increasingly common over the next few years, the trickle towards the new swabs will become a flood.

Adding this to the quality benefits of the new swabs, I would not be surprised if the traditional wound swab becomes extinct in the next 10 years or so.

Rest in peace.

Michael