The challenges faced by living stock collections in the USA

  1. Kevin McCluskey
  2. Kyria Boundy-Mills
  3. Greg Dye
  4. Erin Ehmke
  5. Gregg Gunnell
  6. Hippokratis Kiaris
  7. Maxi POLIHRONAKIS RICHMOND
  8. Anne D Yoder
  9. Daniel R Zeigler
  10. Sarah Zehr
  11. Erich Grotewold  Is a corresponding author
  1. Kansas State University, United States
  2. University of California, Davis, United States
  3. Duke University, United States
  4. University of South Carolina, United States
  5. University of California, San Diego, United States
  6. The Ohio State University, United States

Abstract

Many discoveries in the life sciences have been made using material from living stock collections. These collections provide a uniform and stable supply of living organisms and related materials that enhance the reproducibility of research and minimize the need for repetitive calibration. While collections differ in many ways, they all require expertise in maintaining living organisms and good logistical systems for keeping track of stocks and fulfilling requests for specimens. Here, we review some of the contributions made by living stock collections to research across all branches of the tree of life, and outline the challenges they face.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kevin McCluskey

    Fungal Genetics Stock Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kyria Boundy-Mills

    Phaff Yeast Culture Collection, Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Greg Dye

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Erin Ehmke

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Gregg Gunnell

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hippokratis Kiaris

    Department of Drug Discovery and Biomedical Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Maxi POLIHRONAKIS RICHMOND

    Drosophila Species Stock Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Anne D Yoder

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Daniel R Zeigler

    Bacillus Genetics Stock Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Sarah Zehr

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Erich Grotewold

    Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
    For correspondence
    Grotewold.1@osu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4720-7290

Funding

National Science Foundation (DBI-1642534)

  • Anne D Yoder

National Science Foundation (DBI-1534564)

  • Kevin McCluskey

National Science Foundation (DBI-1561210)

  • Erich Grotewold

National Science Foundation (DBI-1351502)

  • Maxi POLIHRONAKIS RICHMOND

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2017, McCluskey et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,418
    views
  • 277
    downloads
  • 8
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Kevin McCluskey
  2. Kyria Boundy-Mills
  3. Greg Dye
  4. Erin Ehmke
  5. Gregg Gunnell
  6. Hippokratis Kiaris
  7. Maxi POLIHRONAKIS RICHMOND
  8. Anne D Yoder
  9. Daniel R Zeigler
  10. Sarah Zehr
  11. Erich Grotewold
(2017)
The challenges faced by living stock collections in the USA
eLife 6:e24611.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24611

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Benita Martin-Castaño, Patricia Diez-Echave ... Julio Galvez
    Research Article

    Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that displays great variability in clinical phenotype. Many factors have been described to be correlated with its severity, and microbiota could play a key role in the infection, progression, and outcome of the disease. SARS-CoV-2 infection has been associated with nasopharyngeal and gut dysbiosis and higher abundance of opportunistic pathogens. To identify new prognostic markers for the disease, a multicentre prospective observational cohort study was carried out in COVID-19 patients divided into three cohorts based on symptomatology: mild (n = 24), moderate (n = 51), and severe/critical (n = 31). Faecal and nasopharyngeal samples were taken, and the microbiota was analysed. Linear discriminant analysis identified Mycoplasma salivarium, Prevotella dentalis, and Haemophilus parainfluenzae as biomarkers of severe COVID-19 in nasopharyngeal microbiota, while Prevotella bivia and Prevotella timonensis were defined in faecal microbiota. Additionally, a connection between faecal and nasopharyngeal microbiota was identified, with a significant ratio between P. timonensis (faeces) and P. dentalis and M. salivarium (nasopharyngeal) abundances found in critically ill patients. This ratio could serve as a novel prognostic tool for identifying severe COVID-19 cases.

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Bo Zheng, Bronner P Gonçalves ... Caoyi Xue
    Research Article

    Background:

    In many settings, a large fraction of the population has both been vaccinated against and infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Hence, quantifying the protection provided by post-infection vaccination has become critical for policy. We aimed to estimate the protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection of an additional vaccine dose after an initial Omicron variant infection.

    Methods:

    We report a retrospective, population-based cohort study performed in Shanghai, China, using electronic databases with information on SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccination history. We compared reinfection incidence by post-infection vaccination status in individuals initially infected during the April–May 2022 Omicron variant surge in Shanghai and who had been vaccinated before that period. Cox models were fit to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).

    Results:

    275,896 individuals were diagnosed with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in April–May 2022; 199,312/275,896 were included in analyses on the effect of a post-infection vaccine dose. Post-infection vaccination provided protection against reinfection (aHR 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.79–0.85). For patients who had received one, two, or three vaccine doses before their first infection, hazard ratios for the post-infection vaccination effect were 0.84 (0.76–0.93), 0.87 (0.83–0.90), and 0.96 (0.74–1.23), respectively. Post-infection vaccination within 30 and 90 days before the second Omicron wave provided different degrees of protection (in aHR): 0.51 (0.44–0.58) and 0.67 (0.61–0.74), respectively. Moreover, for all vaccine types, but to different extents, a post-infection dose given to individuals who were fully vaccinated before first infection was protective.

    Conclusions:

    In previously vaccinated and infected individuals, an additional vaccine dose provided protection against Omicron variant reinfection. These observations will inform future policy decisions on COVID-19 vaccination in China and other countries.

    Funding:

    This study was funded the Key Discipline Program of Pudong New Area Health System (PWZxk2022-25), the Development and Application of Intelligent Epidemic Surveillance and AI Analysis System (21002411400), the Shanghai Public Health System Construction (GWVI-11.2-XD08), the Shanghai Health Commission Key Disciplines (GWVI-11.1-02), the Shanghai Health Commission Clinical Research Program (20214Y0020), the Shanghai Natural Science Foundation (22ZR1414600), and the Shanghai Young Health Talents Program (2022YQ076).