Advertisement

Incorporating a Commercial Biology Cloud Lab into Online Education

  • Ingmar H. Riedel-KruseEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 22)

Abstract

Traditional biology classes include lab experiments, which are missing from online education. Key challenges include the development of online tools to interface with laboratory resources, back-end logistics, cost, and scale-up. The recent emergence of biology cloud lab companies offers a promising, unexplored opportunity to integrate such labs into online education. We partnered with a cloud lab company to develop a customized prototype platform for graduate biology education based on bacterial growth measurements under antibiotic stress. We evaluated the platform in terms of (i) reliability, cost, and throughput; (ii) its ease of integration into general course content; and (iii) the flexibility and appeal of available experiment types. We were successful in delivering the lab; students designed and ran their own experiments, and analyzed their own data. However, the biological variability and reproducibility of these online experiments posed some challenges. Overall, this approach is very promising, but not yet ready for large-scale deployment in its present form; general advancements in relevant technologies should change this situation soon. We also deduce general lessons for the deployment of other (biology and non-biology) cloud labs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank M. Hodak, the transcriptics team, Z. Hossain, X. Jin, H. Kim, M. Head, and the students in the class.

References

  1. Bonde, M.T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M.V.: Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nature 32, 694–697 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. Buchanan, R.L., Whiting, R.C., Damert, W.C.: When is simple good enough: a comparison of the Gompertz, Baranyi, and three-phase linear models for fitting bacterial growth curves. Food Microbiol. 14(4), 313–326 (1997). 1–14Google Scholar
  3. de Jong, T., Linn, M.C., Zacharia, Z.C.: Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering. Education 340(6130), 305–308 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. Faraji, R., Parsa, A., Torabi, B., Withrow, T.: Effects of kanamycin on the macromolecular composition of kanamycin sensitive Escherichia coli DH5α strain. J. Exp. Microbiol. Immunol. (JEMI) 9, 31–38 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. Fox, A.: Cloud computing–what’s in it for me as a scientist? Science 331(6016), 406–407 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hayden, E.C.: The automated lab. Nature 516, 131–132 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. Heradio, R., de la Torre, L., Galan, D., Cabrerizo, F.J., Herrera-Viedma, E., Dormido, S.: Virtual and remote labs in education: a bibliometric analysis. Comput. Educ. 98(C), 14–38 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. Hossain, Z., Chung, A.M., Riedel-Kruse, I.H.: Real-time and turn-based biology online experimentation. In: Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV) (2015)Google Scholar
  9. Hossain, Z., Blikstein, P., Riedel-Kruse, I.H., Jin, X., Bumbacher, E.W., Chung, A.M., et al.: Interactive cloud experimentation for biology. Presented at the the 33rd Annual ACM Conference, pp. 3681–3690. ACM Press, New York (2015). http://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702354
  10. Hossain, Z., Chung, A.M., Baumbacher, E., Lee, S.A., Honesty, K., Walter, A., et al.: A real-time interactive, scalable biology cloud experimentation platform. Nature Biotechnol. 34(12), 1293–1298 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. Kong, F., Yuan, L., Zheng, Y.F., Chen, W.: Automatic liquid handling for life science: a critical review of the current state of the art. J. Lab. Autom. 17(3), 169–185 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, J., Kladwang, W., Lee, M., Cantu, D., Azizyan, M., Kim, H., et al.: RNA design rules from a massive open laboratory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(6), 2122–2127 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin, J., Lee, S.-M., Lee, H.-J., Koo, Y.-M.: Modeling of typical microbial cell growth in batch culture. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 5(5), 382–385 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lowe, D., Newcombe, P., Stumpers, B.: Evaluation of the use of remote laboratories for secondary school. Sci. Educ. 43(3), 1197–1219 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. Melin, J., Quake, S.R.: Microfluidic large-scale integration: the evolution of design rules for biological automation. Ann. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 36, 213–231 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sauter, M., Uttal, D.H., Rapp, D.N., Downing, M., Jona, K.: Getting real: the authenticity of remote labs and simulations for science learning. Distance Educ. 34(1), 37–47 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sia, S.K., Owens, M.P.: Share and share alike. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1224–1228 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. Swinnen, I.: Predictive modelling of the microbial lag phase: a review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 94(2), 137–159 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wieman, C.E., Adams, W.K., Perkins, K.K.: PHYSICS: PhET: simulations that enhance learning. Science 322(5902), 682–683 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zwietering, M.H., de Koos, J.T., Hasenack, B.E., de Witt, J.C., van’t Riet, K.: Modeling of bacterial growth as a function of temperature. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57(4), 1094–1101 (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BioengineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations