GUEST EDITORIAL
BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING Volume 11, Number 6, 2013 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2013.1161
Biobanking in Emerging Countries Tomas Klingstro¨m
I
n November 2012 at the ESBB 2012 conference in Granada, Dr. Rita Lawlor and Dr. Eric Steinfeld managed a workshop on biobanking in emerging countries. It became evident at the workshop that ‘‘biobanking research’’ can mean a lot of different things to different people. Keeping a distinction between biobanking mediated research and biobank research is very important when discussing the development of biobanking. Most often the funding received to support biobank mediated research does not make it possible to conduct research unless sufficient support is given to biobank research as well. As described in depth by Dr. Rita Lawlor in her workshop report, the many challenges and opportunities that justify both biobank mediated research and biobank research are outlined. In the remainder of the special section articles, we have focused on the topic of biobank research and the knowledge obtained so far, which may support the development of new and more efficient biobanks in emerging countries. Many established biobanks are currently facing growth pains as they are advancing at a pace that would have been impossible to imagine five years ago. By learning from these early developers, younger and smaller biobanks can greatly reduce their costs when starting to scale up by making conscious decisions from the outset. Biobanking is an industry where economics of scale is a major influence and by connecting biobanks in networks, such as the BBMRI infrastructure, it is possible to take full advantage of those economic factors. Summers et al. focused especially on this and compared the hub and spoke models utilized by the LifeLines study in the Netherlands and the H3Africa project.1 Israel is one of the nations where the creation of a decentralized biobanking network following a hub and spoke model has taken place recently. Cohen et al. provide an indepth description with cost estimates on how laboratory based biobanks have created a national biobanking network on a shoestring budget.2 Another inexpensive project is the innovative surveillance system operated at the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, which allows them to actively monitor and manage their freezers at a very low cost. Readers are advised to visit their online monitoring web page at http://azizi.ilri.cgiar.org/ as well as reading the article by Norling et al.3 A major issue in biobanking is that long-term storage and sample management require significant investments. In Sweden, there have been reports of weaknesses in clinical sampling procedures. In many places researchers are collecting
samples 24/7, but they are not processed until pathologists arrive for the day shift. At best, this means that society wastes money on the storage and processing of useless samples. But there is also a significant risk that insufficient records of preanalytical variables will obfuscate potential research results. In the October 2013 issue of this journal, Nussbeck et al. introduced readers to the SPREC system, which provides a comprehensive tool to track pre-analytical variables.4 In the same vein, we have also been able to obtain expert advice from highly qualified experts on DNA and RNA sampling to give us an overview on how to keep costs down and optimize methods to deal with difficult samples from mass graves, natural disasters or non-invasive sampling from wildlife. Biobanking is still a small sector, but it is rapidly growing and forming strong bonds among those of us in the field, which will help to foster collaboration and encourage implicit harmonization as researchers exchange efficient biobanking methods. The idea of biobanking as a facilitator of research is rapidly increasing in importance. The article by Abayomi et al. describes how South Africa is managing its development of a national biobank infrastructure.5 South Africa is a scientific as well as economic leader in sub-Saharan Africa and hopefully their advances will serve as a foundation for further development of biobanks in Africa. This is especially interesting as the continent is likely to become a key area for both biobank mediated science as well as biobank science. The complex genetic background and large number of diseases mean that African scientists are well positioned to make key contributions that may greatly affect general health levels in Africa as well as the rest of the world. There are significant challenges in infrastructure and costs that must be overcome to achieve this, but emerging countries are in a great position to learn from previous experience in other countries and integrate biobanking as a natural part of the healthcare system. Even clinical biobanks are reaching a state where they are more and more becoming an industry that only partially can rely on traditional ‘‘know how’’ in healthcare. With less well-developed health care systems and greater incentives, I would not be surprised if we will see some emerging countries taking the lead in the process of implementing engineering techniques and a more industrialized perspective on large-scale biobanking. To support this development the Global Bioinformatics Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science has developed the Molecular Methods database (www.mol meth.org), which is funded by BBMRI.se to help disseminate techniques applicable to the development of biobanks and
SLU Global Bioinformatics, Department of Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
329
330 biospecimen research. The database was created because although scientific journals are a great tool for publishing scientific results, there is an unmet need for a more interactive research platform to circulate technical knowledge and organizational expertise to support the development of scientific techniques rather than results. With this special section (continuing in the February 2014 issue) we are collaborating with Biopreservation and Biobanking to capture the borderland between methods development and published results. In the future we hope that we will see more and more biobanks in emerging countries who publish their results in Biopreservation and Biobanking and share their methods and operating procedures through the Molecular Methods database.6
References 1. Bruinenberg M, Napier M, Frey M, Summers A. Comparing the hub-and-spoke model practices of the LifeLines study in the Netherlands and the H3 Africa Initiative. Biopreserv Biobank 2014;12, in press. 2. Cohen Y, Almog R, Onn A, Itzhaki-Alfia, Meir K. Establishing and sustaining a biorepository network in Israel: Challenges and progress. Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:331–338.
¨M KLINGSTRO 3. Norling M, Kihara Absolomon, Kemp S. Web-based biobank logging using Python, Perl, and PHP. Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:355–358. 4. Nussbeck SY, Benson EE, Betsou F, Guadagni F, Lehmann S, Umbach N. Is there a protocol for using the SPREC? Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:260–266. 5. Abayomi E, van Rooyen B, Christoffels A, Grewal R, Karam L, Rossouw C, Staunton C, Swanepoel C. Challenges of biobanking in South Africa to facilitate indigenous research in an environment burdened with human immunodeficiency virus, tuberculosis, and emerging noncommunicable diseases. Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:347–354. 6. Klingstro¨m T, Soldatova L, Stevens R, Roos TE, Swertz MA, Mu¨ller KM, Kalasˇ M, Lambrix P, Taussing MJ, Litton JE, Landegren U, Bongcam-Rudloff E. Workshop on laboratory protocol standards for the Molecular Methods Database. N Biotechnol 2013;30:109–113.
Address correspondence to: Tomas Klingstro¨m SLU Global Bioinformatics Centre Department of Animal Science Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Gerda Nilssons va¨g 2 Uppsala, Sweden 75272 E-mail: [email protected]
BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING Volume 11, Number 6, 2013 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2013.1161
Biobanking in Emerging Countries Tomas Klingstro¨m
I
n November 2012 at the ESBB 2012 conference in Granada, Dr. Rita Lawlor and Dr. Eric Steinfeld managed a workshop on biobanking in emerging countries. It became evident at the workshop that ‘‘biobanking research’’ can mean a lot of different things to different people. Keeping a distinction between biobanking mediated research and biobank research is very important when discussing the development of biobanking. Most often the funding received to support biobank mediated research does not make it possible to conduct research unless sufficient support is given to biobank research as well. As described in depth by Dr. Rita Lawlor in her workshop report, the many challenges and opportunities that justify both biobank mediated research and biobank research are outlined. In the remainder of the special section articles, we have focused on the topic of biobank research and the knowledge obtained so far, which may support the development of new and more efficient biobanks in emerging countries. Many established biobanks are currently facing growth pains as they are advancing at a pace that would have been impossible to imagine five years ago. By learning from these early developers, younger and smaller biobanks can greatly reduce their costs when starting to scale up by making conscious decisions from the outset. Biobanking is an industry where economics of scale is a major influence and by connecting biobanks in networks, such as the BBMRI infrastructure, it is possible to take full advantage of those economic factors. Summers et al. focused especially on this and compared the hub and spoke models utilized by the LifeLines study in the Netherlands and the H3Africa project.1 Israel is one of the nations where the creation of a decentralized biobanking network following a hub and spoke model has taken place recently. Cohen et al. provide an indepth description with cost estimates on how laboratory based biobanks have created a national biobanking network on a shoestring budget.2 Another inexpensive project is the innovative surveillance system operated at the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, which allows them to actively monitor and manage their freezers at a very low cost. Readers are advised to visit their online monitoring web page at http://azizi.ilri.cgiar.org/ as well as reading the article by Norling et al.3 A major issue in biobanking is that long-term storage and sample management require significant investments. In Sweden, there have been reports of weaknesses in clinical sampling procedures. In many places researchers are collecting
samples 24/7, but they are not processed until pathologists arrive for the day shift. At best, this means that society wastes money on the storage and processing of useless samples. But there is also a significant risk that insufficient records of preanalytical variables will obfuscate potential research results. In the October 2013 issue of this journal, Nussbeck et al. introduced readers to the SPREC system, which provides a comprehensive tool to track pre-analytical variables.4 In the same vein, we have also been able to obtain expert advice from highly qualified experts on DNA and RNA sampling to give us an overview on how to keep costs down and optimize methods to deal with difficult samples from mass graves, natural disasters or non-invasive sampling from wildlife. Biobanking is still a small sector, but it is rapidly growing and forming strong bonds among those of us in the field, which will help to foster collaboration and encourage implicit harmonization as researchers exchange efficient biobanking methods. The idea of biobanking as a facilitator of research is rapidly increasing in importance. The article by Abayomi et al. describes how South Africa is managing its development of a national biobank infrastructure.5 South Africa is a scientific as well as economic leader in sub-Saharan Africa and hopefully their advances will serve as a foundation for further development of biobanks in Africa. This is especially interesting as the continent is likely to become a key area for both biobank mediated science as well as biobank science. The complex genetic background and large number of diseases mean that African scientists are well positioned to make key contributions that may greatly affect general health levels in Africa as well as the rest of the world. There are significant challenges in infrastructure and costs that must be overcome to achieve this, but emerging countries are in a great position to learn from previous experience in other countries and integrate biobanking as a natural part of the healthcare system. Even clinical biobanks are reaching a state where they are more and more becoming an industry that only partially can rely on traditional ‘‘know how’’ in healthcare. With less well-developed health care systems and greater incentives, I would not be surprised if we will see some emerging countries taking the lead in the process of implementing engineering techniques and a more industrialized perspective on large-scale biobanking. To support this development the Global Bioinformatics Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science has developed the Molecular Methods database (www.mol meth.org), which is funded by BBMRI.se to help disseminate techniques applicable to the development of biobanks and
SLU Global Bioinformatics, Department of Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
329
330 biospecimen research. The database was created because although scientific journals are a great tool for publishing scientific results, there is an unmet need for a more interactive research platform to circulate technical knowledge and organizational expertise to support the development of scientific techniques rather than results. With this special section (continuing in the February 2014 issue) we are collaborating with Biopreservation and Biobanking to capture the borderland between methods development and published results. In the future we hope that we will see more and more biobanks in emerging countries who publish their results in Biopreservation and Biobanking and share their methods and operating procedures through the Molecular Methods database.6
References 1. Bruinenberg M, Napier M, Frey M, Summers A. Comparing the hub-and-spoke model practices of the LifeLines study in the Netherlands and the H3 Africa Initiative. Biopreserv Biobank 2014;12, in press. 2. Cohen Y, Almog R, Onn A, Itzhaki-Alfia, Meir K. Establishing and sustaining a biorepository network in Israel: Challenges and progress. Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:331–338.
¨M KLINGSTRO 3. Norling M, Kihara Absolomon, Kemp S. Web-based biobank logging using Python, Perl, and PHP. Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:355–358. 4. Nussbeck SY, Benson EE, Betsou F, Guadagni F, Lehmann S, Umbach N. Is there a protocol for using the SPREC? Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:260–266. 5. Abayomi E, van Rooyen B, Christoffels A, Grewal R, Karam L, Rossouw C, Staunton C, Swanepoel C. Challenges of biobanking in South Africa to facilitate indigenous research in an environment burdened with human immunodeficiency virus, tuberculosis, and emerging noncommunicable diseases. Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:347–354. 6. Klingstro¨m T, Soldatova L, Stevens R, Roos TE, Swertz MA, Mu¨ller KM, Kalasˇ M, Lambrix P, Taussing MJ, Litton JE, Landegren U, Bongcam-Rudloff E. Workshop on laboratory protocol standards for the Molecular Methods Database. N Biotechnol 2013;30:109–113.
Address correspondence to: Tomas Klingstro¨m SLU Global Bioinformatics Centre Department of Animal Science Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Gerda Nilssons va¨g 2 Uppsala, Sweden 75272 E-mail: [email protected]
