Literature DB >> 8375609

Biotechnology core facilities: trends and update.

K M Ivanetich1, R L Niece, M Rohde, E Fowler, T K Hayes.   

Abstract

A survey of 128 biotechnology core facilities has provided data on the finances, services, space requirements, and personnel. An average facility had four full-time personnel and 7.5 major instrument systems, and occupied 969 sq. ft. Average total income was $244,000/year, but annual user fee income was only $125,000. Typically, facilities required substantial institutional support or grants. Cost recovery (user fee income divided by total income) averaged 49%. During the last 5 years user fee income, total income, and cost recovery have increased. In-house charges for protein sequencing and peptide synthesis increased approximately 30%, while oligonucleotide synthesis charges decreased by 74%. The costs (charges corrected for subsidy from non-user fee income) for most services did not significantly change, except that oligonucleotide synthesis costs decreased by 25% in 1992. DNA synthesis had the highest throughout per month (116 samples), followed by amino acid analysis (86 samples) and DNA sequencing (67 samples). Other services averaged from 5 to 60 samples. DNA synthesis and purification were the services used by the greatest number of principal investigators. A number of services including DNA sequencing, mass spectrometry, capillary electrophoresis, RNA synthesis, electroblotting, and carbohydrate analysis have been introduced in the last 3 years. Although these services are characterized by high levels of methods development and non-user runs, they are offered by twice the percentage of facilities as in 1989, and are increasingly contributing to facility income.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8375609     DOI: 10.1096/fasebj.7.12.8375609

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  FASEB J        ISSN: 0892-6638            Impact factor:   5.191


  6 in total

1.  A scalable high-throughput chemical synthesizer.

Authors:  Eric A Livesay; Ying-Horng Liu; Kevin J Luebke; Joel Irick; Yuri Belosludtsev; Simon Rayner; Robert Balog; Stephen Albert Johnston
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  University multi-user facility survey-2010.

Authors:  Melissa B Riley
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2011-12

3.  Core facilities: maximizing the return on investment.

Authors:  Gregory K Farber; Linda Weiss
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 17.956

4.  Biotechnology core laboratories: An overview.

Authors:  D A McMillen; L Bibbs; N Denslow; K M Ivanetich; C Naeve; R L Niece; S Tindall
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2000-03

5.  Association of biomolecular resource facilities survey: service laboratory funding.

Authors:  Rachel Ogorzalek Loo; Charles M Nicolet; Ronald L Niece; Mary Young; John T Simpson
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2009-07

6.  Survey of current trends in DNA synthesis core facilities.

Authors:  K M Hager; J W Fox; M Gunthorpe; K S Lilley; A Yeung
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  1999-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.