Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40591905›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Gain efficiency with streamlined and automated data processing: Examples from high-throughput monoclonal antibody production.

Malwina Kotowicz, Magdalena Shumanska, Sven Fengler, Birgit Kurkowsky, Anja Meyer-Berhorn, Elisa Moretti, Josephine Blersch, Gisela Schmidt, Jakob Kreye, Scott van Hoof and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Malwina KotowiczGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LAT, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6030-5637
Magdalena ShumanskaGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LAT, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7999-6781
Sven FenglerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LAT, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3742-1306
Birgit KurkowskyGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LAT, Bonn, Germany.
Anja Meyer-BerhornGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LAT, Bonn, Germany.
Elisa MorettiGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LAT, Bonn, Germany.
Josephine BlerschGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LAT, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0637-3273
Gisela SchmidtGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LIS, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8519-9666
Jakob KreyeGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2913-1015
Scott van HoofGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2091-0904
Elisa Sánchez-SendínGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1984-6746
S Momsen ReinckeGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8132-3527
Lars KrügerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), TTO, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9613-5433
Harald PrüßGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8283-7976
Philip DennerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LAT, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4301-5013
Eugenio FavaGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3737-0334
Dominik StappertGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), CRFS-LAT, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4563-1661

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data management and sample tracking in complex biological workflows are essential steps to ensure necessary documentation and guarantee reusability of data and metadata. Currently, these steps pose challenges related to correct annotation and labeling, error detection, and safeguarding the quality of documentation. With growing acquisition of biological data and the expanding automatization of laboratory workflows, manual processing of sample data is no longer favorable, as it is time- and resource-consuming, prone to biases and errors, and lacks scalability and standardization. Thus, managing heterogeneous biological data calls for efficient and tailored systems, especially in laboratories run by biologists with limited computational expertise. Here, we showcase how to meet these challenges with a modular pipeline for data processing, facilitating the complex production of monoclonal antibodies from single B-cells. We present best practices for development of data processing pipelines concerned with extensive acquisition of biological data that undergoes continuous manipulation and analysis. Moreover, we assess the versatility of proposed design principles through a proof-of-concept data processing pipeline for automated induced pluripotent stem cell culture and differentiation. We show that our approach streamlines data management operations, speeds up experimental cycles and leads to enhanced reproducibility. Finally, adhering to the presented guidelines will promote compliance with FAIR principles upon publishing.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysAnimalsAutomationB-LymphocytesCell DifferentiationHumansInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsReproducibility of ResultsWorkflowAntibodies, Monoclonal

Identifiers

PMID40591905
PMCPMC12212921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.