1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
  2. Plant Biology

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
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24611
Share this article
Cite this article
  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
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

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

National Science Foundation (DBI-1561691)

  • Erich Grotewold

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

  • 1,419
    views
  • 277
    downloads
  • 7
    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

Categories and tags