Normalisation is a fundamental step in many laboratory workflows, particularly in molecular biology, genomics, and drug discovery. It involves adjusting the concentration of a sample — such as DNA, RNA, proteins, or small molecules — to a specific, uniform level across a set of samples. This ensures consistency, accuracy, and reproducibility in downstream processes like PCR, next-generation sequencing (NGS), or high-throughput screening.
For instance, in a genomics workflow, DNA samples from different sources may have varying concentrations. If these variations are not corrected, they can lead to inconsistent amplification, biased sequencing results, or unreliable data interpretation. Normalisation ensures every sample starts from an equal baseline, enabling fair comparisons and robust results.
While normalisation is a fundamental step in many workflows, performing it manually is far from straightforward. It involves a series of calculations and precise liquid handling that can quickly become tedious and error-prone, especially when dealing with large sample sets.
Here’s why manual normalisation can be such a bottleneck:
1. Tedious Calculations
Normalisation requires calculating the volume of diluent and stock solution needed to achieve the desired concentration for each sample. This process can be manageable for a small number of samples, but as the sample set grows, so does the risk of calculation errors. Missteps in these calculations can lead to inconsistent sample concentrations, which jeopardise downstream results
2. Precision and Accuracy Challenges
Pipetting the calculated volumes accurately and mixing consistently is critical, especially for low-volume adjustments. Variations in pipetting technique, fatigue, or using improperly calibrated pipettes can introduce inconsistencies. Even slight deviations can result in significant differences in concentration, compromising the entire dataset.
3. Time-Intensive Workflow
For labs handling dozens or hundreds of samples, normalisation can take hours to perform manually with a single channel pipette. Each sample requires individual calculations, pipetting, and careful tracking leaving the time saving manual multi-channel pipettes on the shelf. The repetitive nature of single channel manual pipetting also increases the likelihood of mistakes such as skipping samples or mislabeling tubes.
4. Risk of Contamination
Frequent handling of samples during manual normalisation increases the risk of cross-contamination. This is particularly problematic in workflows involving sensitive downstream applications, where even minor contamination can yield unreliable results.
5. Inconsistent Documentation
Tracking and documenting manual normalisation steps can be cumbersome. It’s easy to overlook details, misrecord values, or lose track of progress during long workflows. These issues make it difficult to trace errors if problems arise later in the process.
Manual normalisation, while feasible, is a process fraught with inefficiencies and potential for error. These challenges can significantly impact the quality, reproducibility, and throughput of your work—making a strong case for automation.