Publications- biospecimen quality

This page provides links to notable publications that have been published in the area of biospecimen quality. As discussed in our About page, biospecimen quality is the focus of our BSN-funded project, and also features in the published biobanking literature. Each publication provides a link to PubMed, where papers can be retrieved.

Bowen, A., Casadevall, A. Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015; 112 (36): 11335 – 11340. This publication highlights the growing disparity between input of scientific resources, and output of therapeutics and increased life expectancy. Reasons for this disparity are considered.

Buck, S. Solving reproducibility. Science. 2015; 348: 1403. This editorial highlights the issue of irreproducibility in science, and ways to alleviate it.

Freedman, LP., Cockburn, IM. and Simcoe, TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 2015; 13:e1002165. This paper highlights the issue of low reproducibility in research, from an economic perspective, and outlines a framework for solutions and a plan for long-term improvements.

Ioannidis, JP. How to make more published research true. PLoS Med. 2014; 11: e1001747. This paper addresses inaccurate research findings, and what can be done to mitigate this issue.

Kristensen, G.B.B., Akre, K.M., Kristoffersen, A.H. et al. How to conduct External Quality Assessment Schemes for the pre-analytical phase? Biochemia Medica. 2014;24(1):114-22. This paper outlines the different types of External Quality Assessment schemes for the pre-analytical phase.

BioCoR. Literature survey on storage temperatures. University of Minnesota College of Science and Engineering. Website: accessed 12th December 2014. This comprehensive review of 160 relevant publications provides a excellent resource for those interested in the effects of storage temperature on biospecimens.

Geraghty, RJ. Capes-Davis, A. Davis, JM. et al. Guidelines for the use of cell lines in biomedical research. Br J Cancer. 2014; 111: 1021 – 1046. These comprehensive guidelines cover areas such as development, acquisition, authentication, cryopreservation, transfer of cell lines between laboratories, microbial contamination, characterisation, instability and misidentification.

Betsou, F., Gunter, E., Clements, J. et al. Identification of evidence-based biospecimen quality-control tools. Journal of Molecular Diagnostics. 2013 Jan; 15(1): 3-16. This review, authored by the ISBER Biospecimen Science Working Group, identifies QC tools, for both fluid and solid-tissue samples, based on a comprehensive and critical literature review.

Nussbeck, S., Benson, E., Betsou, F. et al. Is there a protocol for using the SPREC? Biopreservation and Biobanking. 2013; 11(5):260-266. This published discussion provides expert responses to questions surrounding the SPREC.

Begley, C. and Ellis, L. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012 Mar; 483: 531-533. This comment, published in Nature, urges readers to consider the reproducibility of cancer research findings.

Cole, A., Cheah, S., Dee, S. et al. Biospecimen use correlates with emerging techniques in cancer research: impact on planning future biobanks. Biopreserv. Biobank. 2012; 10:518-525. This study investigates 378 cancer research publications from the journal Cancer Research to characterize the relationship between specific assay techniques and biospecimen formats and products utilised.

LaBaer, J. Improving international research with clinical specimens: 5 achievable objectives. J Proteome Res. 2012; 11: 5592 – 601. This paper focuses on five major challenges that thwart clinical sample use for translational research and proposes near term objectives to address them.

Lehmann, S., Guadagni, F., Moore, H. et al. Standard preanalytical coding for biospecimens: Review and implementation of the sample PREanalytical code (SPREC). Biopreservation and Biobanking. 2012; 10(4): 366-375. This paper outlines version 2.0 of a 7-element code to define pre-analytical variables (acquisition, processing, storage, shipping) for both fluid and solid samples.

Matzke, EM., O’Donoghue, S., Barnes, RO. Certification for biobanks: The program developed by the Canadian Tumour Repository Network (CTRNet). Biopres Biobank. 2012; 10:426-432. This two phase certification system is intended for all types of tumour banks.

McShane, L. and Hayes, D. Publication of tumor marker research results: The necessity for complete and transparent reporting. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012 Dec; 30(34): 4223-4232. This publication highlights the importance of improving the quality of the reporting surrounding biospecimens.

Simeon-Dubach, D., Burt, A. and Hall, P. Quality really matters: the need to improve specimen quality in biomedical research. Journal of Pathology. 2012; 228: 431-433. This paper discusses potential flaws in biomedical research due to poor biospecimen quality, and endorses the use of the BRISQ guidelines for transparent reporting.

Ahmed, FE. Biobanking perspective on challenges in sample handling, collection, processing, storage, analysis and retrieval for genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics data. Anal Methods. 2011; 3: 1029-1038. This paper highlights the increasing requirement for biospecimens in light of the omics era. The importance of biospecimen quality is highlighted, and suggestions for increasing this quality are given.

Kiehntopf, M. and Krawczak, M. Biobanking and international interoperability: samples. Hum Genet. 2011; 130: 369-376. This paper discusses international sample exchange in the context of sample quality.

Lim, MD., Dickherber, A. Compton, CC. Before you analyse a human specimen, think quality, variability, and bias. Anal Chem. 2011; 83:8-13. This paper highlights the need to consider upstream biospecimen variables, because of technical and experimental design complexities.

Moore, H., Kelly, A., Jewell, S. et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality. Biopreservation and biobanking. 2011; 9(1): 57-70. This paper introduces the concept of the BRISQ, a checklist that lists items to be included in publications that have utilised biospecimens.

Prinz, F., Schlange, T. and Asadullah, K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2011; 10(9): 712. This correspondence cautions against early data produced on potential drug targets.

Betsou, F., Lehmann, S., Ashton, G. et al. Standard preanalytical coding for biospecimens: defining the sample PREanalytical code. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. 2010; 19: 1004-1011. This paper introduces a 7-element code to define pre-analytical variables for both fluid and solid samples.

Vaught, J., Baust, J.G., Heacox, A.E. et al. What are three actionable strategies to improve quality in biomedical research? Biopreservation and Biobanking. 2010; 8(3): 121-125. This paper highlights the opinions of eight biobanking experts on ways to improve biospecimens and biobanking.

Moore, H., Compton, C., Lim, M. et al. 2009 Biospecimen research network symposium: Advancing cancer research through biospecimen science. Cancer Research. 2009; 69(17): 6770-6772. This paper summarises the outcomes of the 2009 biospecimen research network symposium, with a section on pre-analytical variability.

Simon, R., Paik, S. and Hayes, D. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive markers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2009; 101(21):1446-1452. This commentary discusses reasons for potential disparity in tumor biomarker results, including pre-analytical variation.

Barnes, RO., Parisien, M., Murphy, LC. et al. Influence of evolution in tumor biobanking on the interpretation of translational research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17:3344-3350. This paper considers whether the collection era (pre-2000 or post-2000) may influence gene expression data.

Asslaber, M. and Zatloukal, K. Biobanks: Transnational, European and global networks. Briefings Func Genom. 2007; 6: 193-201. This paper advocates for common biobanking samples and strategies, and describes network progress that has been made in the European biobanking sector.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s