EDITORIAL
BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING Volume 10, Number 4, 2012 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2012.1041
Biospecimens in the News: Back to Basics Jim Vaught
A
s we assembled the table of contents for this issue we again saw articles that address topics that are important to the fields of biopreservation and biobanking in a variety of complementary ways. It’s important for Biopreservation and Biobanking to take the lead in publishing in the areas of international biobanking; biospecimen science; biopreservation; business modeling; ethical and regulatory issues; and approaches to biospecimen informatics. Such topics are all interrelated and provide our readership with a unique perspective. In this issue several articles demonstrate our coverage of these areas: A clinical biobanking business model (Kozlakidis et al.); an assessment of implementation of the Sample PREanalytical Code (SPREC) system (Lehmann et. al.); and a series of papers from a symposium concerning advances in dry-state stabilization of biomaterials (Crowe, Oliver, Arav and Natan, and Muller). Given two high-profile media accounts concerning biospecimen quality and standards issues, the critical importance of best practices needs to be highlighted (again). As the articles in the current issue demonstrate, in Biopreservation and Biobanking we are in the business of publishing the biospecimen and biopreservation science articles that will become the standards of tomorrow. But these recent accounts in the news remind us that it’s the standards of today that need to be adhered to. In June, in The Experts Speak section, we recounted the story in the Wall Street Journal (20 April 2012) concerning the prevalence of cell line contamination. Two experts in the field, Joe Mintzer and Yvonne Reid, discussed efforts at Coriell Institute and the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) to assess the status of the problem and promote corrective actions. A working group led by ATCC has issued a report discussed in the June 2012 The Experts Speak section that provides accessible solutions to cell culture laboratories that should be routinely followed. However the problem of cell line cross-contamination has been wellestablished for decades, and as noted in the June section was highlighted in the Henrietta Lacks book by Rebecca Skloot. So with such a widely known problem that has resulted in significant numbers of erroneous reports in the literature, we have to ask why the problem has not been resolved? More recently a story appeared about a serious incident at the McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts where 54 brains for autism research were among a larger number of critical specimens that thawed and may be unusable for future research.1 The brain bank director Dr. Francine Benes estimates that the planned autism research could be set back 10 years by
this accident.2 This is the latest in a series of such high-profile specimen storage accidents, some of them more preventable than others. In this case the affected freezer had probably been malfunctioning for days, two alarm systems were not activated by the rising temperatures, and a temperature monitor incorrectly indicated that the freezer was working at its proper temperature. Without more information it’s difficult to speculate on the root cause of this latest event. But it is safe to say that if all existing standard procedures were followed, then obviously those procedures need to be reviewed and modified, possibly to include regular manual checks of all freezer units. Solutions have been in place for years that would prevent incidents such as these. For the cell line contamination issue, standard tests are available that should be used by all laboratories where studies involve cell lines. NIH has had cell culture authentication guidelines in place for several years that grantees are encouraged to follow.3 Hopefully the latest guidance from the ATCC working group can be effectively implemented. For freezer failures and related biobank equipment problems there is clear guidance in the ISBER Best Practices, published in our April 2012 issue. Although we can strongly encourage all laboratories and biobanks to follow these basic standards to prevent freezer disasters, cell line contamination and related problems, and the possibility of faulty data and erroneous publications, there are too many such facilities and too little oversight and enforcement of standards locally and nationally. As we further develop tools such as BRISQ4 and SPREC to monitor and report on adherence to standards, let us hope that such problems and disasters will fade as we develop the field of biospecimen science.
References 1. Brain tissue used to study autism destroyed by hospital freezer fault. The Guardian June 11, 2012. http://guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ jun/11/brain-tissue-autism-freezer-fault. (accessed 19 June 2012). 2. Brain bank’s freezer failure could slow autism research. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/science/brokenfreezer-damages-stored-brain-tissues.html. (accessed 19 June 2012). 3. NIH Notice Regarding Authentication of Cultured Cell Lines (November, 2007) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/noticefiles/NOT-OD-08-017.html. (accessed 19 June 2012). 4. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, et.al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Biopreserv Biobank 2011; 9:57–65.
Bethesda, Maryland, [email protected].
335
Jim Vaught, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief
BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING Volume 10, Number 4, 2012 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2012.1041
Biospecimens in the News: Back to Basics Jim Vaught
A
s we assembled the table of contents for this issue we again saw articles that address topics that are important to the fields of biopreservation and biobanking in a variety of complementary ways. It’s important for Biopreservation and Biobanking to take the lead in publishing in the areas of international biobanking; biospecimen science; biopreservation; business modeling; ethical and regulatory issues; and approaches to biospecimen informatics. Such topics are all interrelated and provide our readership with a unique perspective. In this issue several articles demonstrate our coverage of these areas: A clinical biobanking business model (Kozlakidis et al.); an assessment of implementation of the Sample PREanalytical Code (SPREC) system (Lehmann et. al.); and a series of papers from a symposium concerning advances in dry-state stabilization of biomaterials (Crowe, Oliver, Arav and Natan, and Muller). Given two high-profile media accounts concerning biospecimen quality and standards issues, the critical importance of best practices needs to be highlighted (again). As the articles in the current issue demonstrate, in Biopreservation and Biobanking we are in the business of publishing the biospecimen and biopreservation science articles that will become the standards of tomorrow. But these recent accounts in the news remind us that it’s the standards of today that need to be adhered to. In June, in The Experts Speak section, we recounted the story in the Wall Street Journal (20 April 2012) concerning the prevalence of cell line contamination. Two experts in the field, Joe Mintzer and Yvonne Reid, discussed efforts at Coriell Institute and the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) to assess the status of the problem and promote corrective actions. A working group led by ATCC has issued a report discussed in the June 2012 The Experts Speak section that provides accessible solutions to cell culture laboratories that should be routinely followed. However the problem of cell line cross-contamination has been wellestablished for decades, and as noted in the June section was highlighted in the Henrietta Lacks book by Rebecca Skloot. So with such a widely known problem that has resulted in significant numbers of erroneous reports in the literature, we have to ask why the problem has not been resolved? More recently a story appeared about a serious incident at the McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts where 54 brains for autism research were among a larger number of critical specimens that thawed and may be unusable for future research.1 The brain bank director Dr. Francine Benes estimates that the planned autism research could be set back 10 years by
this accident.2 This is the latest in a series of such high-profile specimen storage accidents, some of them more preventable than others. In this case the affected freezer had probably been malfunctioning for days, two alarm systems were not activated by the rising temperatures, and a temperature monitor incorrectly indicated that the freezer was working at its proper temperature. Without more information it’s difficult to speculate on the root cause of this latest event. But it is safe to say that if all existing standard procedures were followed, then obviously those procedures need to be reviewed and modified, possibly to include regular manual checks of all freezer units. Solutions have been in place for years that would prevent incidents such as these. For the cell line contamination issue, standard tests are available that should be used by all laboratories where studies involve cell lines. NIH has had cell culture authentication guidelines in place for several years that grantees are encouraged to follow.3 Hopefully the latest guidance from the ATCC working group can be effectively implemented. For freezer failures and related biobank equipment problems there is clear guidance in the ISBER Best Practices, published in our April 2012 issue. Although we can strongly encourage all laboratories and biobanks to follow these basic standards to prevent freezer disasters, cell line contamination and related problems, and the possibility of faulty data and erroneous publications, there are too many such facilities and too little oversight and enforcement of standards locally and nationally. As we further develop tools such as BRISQ4 and SPREC to monitor and report on adherence to standards, let us hope that such problems and disasters will fade as we develop the field of biospecimen science.
References 1. Brain tissue used to study autism destroyed by hospital freezer fault. The Guardian June 11, 2012. http://guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ jun/11/brain-tissue-autism-freezer-fault. (accessed 19 June 2012). 2. Brain bank’s freezer failure could slow autism research. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/science/brokenfreezer-damages-stored-brain-tissues.html. (accessed 19 June 2012). 3. NIH Notice Regarding Authentication of Cultured Cell Lines (November, 2007) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/noticefiles/NOT-OD-08-017.html. (accessed 19 June 2012). 4. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, et.al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Biopreserv Biobank 2011; 9:57–65.
Bethesda, Maryland, [email protected].
335
Jim Vaught, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief
