Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Survey of current trends in DNA synthesis core facilities

Journal article published in 1999 by K. M. Hager, J. W. Fox, M. Gunthorpe, K. S. Lilley, A. Yeung
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Question mark in circle
Preprint: policy unknown
Question mark in circle
Postprint: policy unknown
Question mark in circle
Published version: policy unknown

Abstract

The Nucleic Acids Research Group of the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) last surveyed DNA synthesis core facilities in April 1995. Because of the introduction of new technologies and dramatic changes in the market, we sought to update survey information and to determine how academic facilities responded to the challenge presented by commercial counterparts. The online survey was opened in January 1999 by notifying members and subscribers to the ABRF electronic discussion group. The survey consisted of five parts: general facility information, oligonucleotide production profile, oligonucleotide charges, synthesis protocols, and trends in DNA synthesis (including individual comments). All submitted data were anonymously coded. Respondents from DNA synthesis facilities were primarily from the academic category and were established between 1984 and 1991. Typically, a facility provides additional services such as DNA sequencing and has upgraded to electronic ordering. There is stability in staffing profiles for these facilities in that the total number of employees is relatively unchanged, the tenure for staff averages 5.9 years, and experience is extensive. On average, academic facilities annually produce approximately 1/16 the number of oligonucleotides produced by the average commercial facilities, but all facilities report an increase in demand. Charges for standard oligonucleotides from academic facilities are relatively higher than from commercial companies; however, the opposite is true for modified phosphoramidites. Subsidized facilities charge less than nonsubsidized facilities. Synthesis protocols and reagents are standard across the categories. Most facilities offer typical modifications such as biotinylation. Despite the competition by large commercial facilities that have reduced costs dramatically, academic facilities remain a stable entity. Academic facilities enhance the quality of service by focusing on nonstandard oligonucleotides and valuable services such as personal consultations, electronic ordering, and diversifying into other services.