Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2021 (2) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Referierte Publikation
- ja (2)
Schlagworte
- Biology (1)
- Bisphenol-A (1)
- Comparability (1)
- Data (1)
- Fluorescence (1)
- Imaging (1)
- Interlaboratory key comparison (1)
- Life science (1)
- Medicine (1)
- Metrology (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
A modern day light microscope has evolved from a tool devoted to making primarily empirical observations to what is now a sophisticated, quantitative device that is an integral part of both physical and life science research. Nowadays, microscopes are found in nearly every experimental laboratory. However, despite their prevalent use in capturing and quantifying scientific phenomena, neither a thorough understanding of the principles underlying quantitative imaging techniques nor appropriate knowledge of how to calibrate, operate and maintain microscopes can be taken for granted. This is clearly demonstrated by the well-documented and widespread difficulties that are routinely encountered in evaluating acquired data and reproducing scientific experiments. Indeed, studies have shown that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to repeat another scientist’s experiments, while more than half have even failed to reproduce their own experiments1. One factor behind the reproducibility crisis of experiments published in scientific journals is the frequent underreporting of imaging methods caused by a lack of awareness and/or a lack of knowledge of the applied technique2,3. Whereas quality control procedures for some methods used in biomedical research, such as genomics (e.g., DNA sequencing, RNA-seq) or cytometry, have been introduced (e.g. ENCODE4), this issue has not been tackled for optical microscopy instrumentation and images. Although many calibration standards and protocols have been published, there is a lack of awareness and agreement on common Standards and guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility5.
In April 2020, the QUality Assessment and REProducibility for instruments and images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative6 was formed. This initiative comprises imaging scientists from academia and industry who share a common interest in achieving a better understanding of the performance and limitations of microscopes and improved quality control (QC) in light microscopy. The ultimate goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to establish a set of common QC standards, guidelines, metadata models7,8, and tools9,10, including detailed protocols, with the ultimate aim of improving reproducible advances in scientific research.
This White Paper 1) summarizes the major obstacles identified in the field that motivated the launch of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative; 2) identifies the urgent need to address these obstacles in a grassroots manner, through a community of Stakeholders including, researchers, imaging scientists11, bioimage analysts, bioimage informatics developers, corporate partners, Funding agencies, standards organizations, scientific publishers, and observers of such; 3) outlines the current actions of the QUAREPLiMi initiative, and 4) proposes future steps that can be taken to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the proposed guidelines to manage QC.
To summarize, the principal goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to improve the overall quality and reproducibility of light microscope image data by introducing broadly accepted standard practices and accurately captured image data metrics.
The CCQM-K148.a comparison was coordinated by the BIPM on behalf of the CCQM Organic Analysis Working Group for NMIs and DIs which provide measurement services in organic analysis under the CIPM MRA. It was undertaken as a "Track A" comparison within the OAWG strategic plan. CCQM-K148.a demonstrates capabilities for assigning the mass fraction content of a solid organic compound having moderate molecular complexity, where the compound has a molar mass in the range (75 - 500) g/mol and is non-polar (pKow < −2), when present as the primary organic component in a neat organic solid and where the mass fraction content of the primary component in the material is in excess of 950 mg/g.
Participants were required to report the mass fraction of Bisphenol A present in one supplied unit of the comparison material. Participants using a mass balance method for the assignment were also required to report their assignments of the impurity components present in the material. Methods used by the seventeen participating NMIs or DIs were predominantly based on either stand-alone mass balance (summation of impurities) or qNMR approaches, or the combination of data obtained using both methods. The results obtained using thermal methods based on freezing-point depression methods were also reported by a limited number of participants. There was excellent agreement between assignments obtained using all three approaches to assign the BPA content.
The assignment of the values for the mass fraction content of BPA consistent with the KCRV was achieved by most of the comparison participants with an associated relative standard uncertainty in the assigned value in the range (0.1 - 0.5)%.