Currently, if many colonies of the same design are tested under different
conditions and in different experiments, the user must give each “sample” a
1 https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/init.do
4
D9.1
new strain/isolate name when uploading the data (e.g. BS1113_1, BS1113_2, BS1113_3, etc.). The user must keep track of these names/numbers in a separate worksheet, so that each isolate has a unique name. In many cases the user does not actually store these biological replicates physically. The numbers are therefore not associated with retrievable samples, but rather with temporary unique samples (a colony that is picked, tested, measured, then discarded), while only the pool is stored.
It could be useful in the future if the user could just enter the pool name and request the system to automatically name the isolates. This option needs to be further discussed.
From D9.1:
Currently, if many colonies of the same design are tested under different conditions and in different experiments, the user must give each “sample” a 1 https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/init.do 4 D9.1
new strain/isolate name when uploading the data (e.g. BS1113_1, BS1113_2, BS1113_3, etc.). The user must keep track of these names/numbers in a separate worksheet, so that each isolate has a unique name. In many cases the user does not actually store these biological replicates physically. The numbers are therefore not associated with retrievable samples, but rather with temporary unique samples (a colony that is picked, tested, measured, then discarded), while only the pool is stored. It could be useful in the future if the user could just enter the pool name and request the system to automatically name the isolates. This option needs to be further discussed.