ArticleScientific reports2024
Automating the Illumina DNA library preparation kit for whole genome sequencing applications on the flowbot ONE liquid handler robot.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergence of carbapenem-resistant putative hypervirulentEmerging microbes & infections · 2026Article
- Implementing whole genome and transcriptome sequencing for cancer patients in routine healthcare: a comprehensive guide to costing.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Clinical Implementation of a High-Throughput Automated Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Test: TruSight Oncology 500 HT.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2025Article
- Three-year nationwide survey of microbiology laboratory equipment conditions in China's CDC: setting new benchmarks.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is currently making its transition from research tool into routine (clinical) diagnostic practice. The workflow for WGS includes the highly labor-intensive library preparations (LP), one of the most critical steps in the WGS procedure. Here, we describe the automation of the LP on the flowbot ONE robot to minimize the risk of human error and reduce hands-on time (HOT). For this, the robot was equipped, programmed, and optimized to perform the Illumina DNA Prep automatically. Results obtained from 16 LP that were performed both manually and automatically showed comparable library DNA yields (median of 1.5-fold difference), similar assembly quality values, and 100% concordance on the final core genome multilocus sequence typing results. In addition, reproducibility of results was confirmed by re-processing eight of the 16 LPs using the automated workflow. With the automated workflow, the HOT was reduced to 25 min compared to the 125 min needed when performing eight LPs using the manual workflow. The turn-around time was 170 and 200 min for the automated and manual workflow, respectively. In summary, the automated workflow on the flowbot ONE generates consistent results in terms of reliability and reproducibility, while significantly reducing HOT as compared to manual LP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.