our laboratory (a public laboratory based in Italy) needs to purchase a robotic liquid handling platform. For budget reasons, after careful evaluation, we are finally leaning towards the Biomek i3.
Our lab does not have a very high throughput (20–30k reactions/year) and we have a lower dispensing limit of 1 microliter. The instrument seems to meet all our requirements, but I would love to hear from actual users about their experience with it (including the i5, since the i3 series is relatively new).
Is it easy to use? Is the software user-friendly when it comes to programming protocols? Is it accurate and reliable at low volumes? How is the customer support?
What sorts of processes do you want to automate? Sounds like PCR and maybe PCR cleanup? Or maybe I’m reading too much into reactions/year.
I haven’t used the i3, but Beckman is (was?) a reliable brand with reliable hardware and software. I question their support since the Danaher buyout, but that could be me just being cynical. I’ve heard more trouble with Labcyte since they were bought out by Beckman (Danaher) and maybe I’m just piling on.
In any case, some description of what you’d like to achieve would give some direction about which instrument might be a best fit.
Yes we’re doing mostly PCR set up and diluitions for sanger sequencing or microsatellites analyses. Usually we dispense 6-10 ul of mastermix and ad 1-2 ul of DNA. We do not exclude in the future to use it also for some NGS-library step (beads purifications for istance)
My personal opinion here is that I’d either be looking for something with true cherry pick capability, an 8-channel with individual pipetting ability (Tecan/Hamilton/Beckman i5/i7) or something with a 96-well head for full 96/384-well plate stamps/cleanups (Bravo/Tecan/Hamilton/Beckman i5/i7). The i3’s 8 channel pipettor is kind of in a no-man’s middle land between those two. If you ever did want to do bead cleanups of a 96-well plate it would take ages to cleanup one plate. Any of the other platforms could get it done in 20-45mins depending on incubation times that you desire.
I always lean towards Bravos for 96-well/384-well stamps, but I admit that a Bravo by itself isn’t that useful, it really needs something to feed it plates since it only has 9 plate pads.
I am an engineer from MGI Tech and we have dedicated liquid handling platforms for PCR and NGS workflows. I would suggest you to check them out and you can also reach me out if you have any other questions.
It takes around 3x the time from my experience. Dispensing reagent to a whole plate could take upwards of 6+ minutes, meaning that your beads in column 12 are going to be drying for a significantly longer time than the samples in column 1.
@jnecr hit the nail on the head - you’ll want individual channel control for PCR setup. I’d consider the MLPrep with individual 2 vs the fixed 8 channel setup. Throughput would be limited due to deck size and number of channels, but would add the variability you’d want for purification, PCR setup, and library prep.
One last thing to consider is the volume. 1 uL is pretty tough to hit consistently, so be sure to ask vendors for data at exactly that datapoint. Also considering the risk that PCR is downstream, any variance will be amplified accordingly and you’ll introduce bias to your eventual sequencing. I usually try to limit my volume transfers to 2uL when working with air displacement, but lower than that is certainly doable with enough time and effort.
I really love the mechanicals on the Bravo. That 96-head just might be the best in the business in terms of reliablility, smoothness, and precision. But it’s such a pain to program. The way it compiles it’s instructions and the handling of labware is so different from any other liquid handler on the market. There’s also mind-numbing restrictions on labware placement. I can’t. I just can’t~ Once you add the stackers to the Bravo, the footprint is so large, you might as well buy a dual head system that can do everything from the other manufacturers. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
I highly recommend getting the at least the i5 instead. The ability to cherry pick samples individually with 8 separate channels completely changes your capabilities. If you need to do bead cleanups too, then get an i7 (or an equivalent Tecan) so you can process an entire plate at once. It’s not just a matter of throughput, the syringe system on Biomeks can’t handle the viscosity of bead washes well. The 96-well multichannel head is much more robust and will offer better volumetric consistency in addition to the the higher throughput.
I find the software very easy to learn and program. Much easier than Hamilton’s or Bravo’s software. However there is a reliance of being able to write VBScript or JavaScript, which Beckman no longer offers offical support for. So you have to dig through internet forums to find the solutions you need to program your own methods. Compounding that is that there used to be an official forum that contained a ton of useful information and references, but they took that down along with all the essential knowledge that was in it. Thankfully, you can write most basic programs with the tools already offered in the software, and there’s a pretty active and supportive community (such as this forum). I also created the r/BiomekProgramming subreddit as an alternative, but that was before I found this place.
In terms of technical support, Beckman Coulter has been very responsive and reliable.
I find that it can pipette down to 0.5 uL pretty reliably. The accuracy at those volumes are not as good as “a good pair of hands”. The syringe system on the i5/i7 also adds variability to volumetric precision as it’s dependent on how well the system primes. The Tecan uses the same system and has the same disadvantages. Hamilton’s 8-channel pipettors are superior in terms of precision, but I don’t like the lack of control in fine movements. You have much more options in Biomek software for fine-tuning transfers. The technicians that run the liquid handlers in the lab universally prefer Biomeks over the Hamilton STAR or the Bravo, so that speaks loudly about the product. An applications guy I spoke with from Kapa Biosystems who worked on every brand of liquid handler on the market spoke highly of Tecan as his favorite.
Yes, yes, and yes. I still love VWorks though. It’s an entirely different kind of scheduler. However, it was written as a full on workcell scheduling software. I think that’s why it is the way it is. For just running a Bravo you have to jump through a bunch of hoops that are nauseating.
Yes Tecan liquid liha and Biomek 8-span are the same system, though I’d likely still suggest tecan over Biomek simply because they typically don’t have the miles of tubing wound up behind the syringed and pump bank/dilutors. I measured 16mL per channel on my 250 uL syringe system - it took ages to properly flush; and just imagine how much of a spring-like effect that has in the overall system.
Also how cool is it that you started the Biomek subreddit?! Between that subreddit, this forum, and a Biomek discord I was able to self teach myself to a fairly high level of expertise over the past few years!
I just wanted to point out the existence of robots similar to the i3: Opentrons Flex (has 96 channel option), Revvity Assaymate (Opentrons Flex clone) / Bioyond (Shanghai company, ultra cost effective liquid handlers though I haven’t tried them). Gilson also has some liquid handlers
I’ve only used the Opentrons Flex, I’m happy with it except that it can’t multi-dispense small volumes that well (e.g <5 uL). Single dispense into liquid appears fine down to 1 uL.
