Editing Digital microfluidics (section)

==== Improved reproducibility ====
Overcoming issues of [[reproducibility]] has become a topic of growing concern across scientific disciplines.<ref>{{Cite journal | vauthors = Baker M |date=2016-05-01 |title=1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=533 |issue=7604 |pages=452–454 |doi=10.1038/533452a |pmid=27225100 |bibcode=2016Natur.533..452B |s2cid=4460617 |issn=1476-4687|doi-access=free }}</ref> Reproducibility can be especially salient when multiple iterations of the same experimental protocol need to be repeated.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Jessop-Fabre MM, Sonnenschein N | title = Improving Reproducibility in Synthetic Biology | journal = Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology | volume = 7 | pages = 18 | date = 2019 | pmid = 30805337 | pmc = 6378554 | doi = 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00018 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Using liquid handling robots that can minimize volume loss between experimental steps are often used to reduce error rates and improve reproducibility. An automated DMF system for [[CRISPR gene editing|CRISPR-Cas9]] genome editing was described by Sinha et al, and was used to culture and genetically modify [[H1299]] lung cancer cells. The authors noted that no variation in [[Gene knockout|knockout efficiencies]] across loci was observed when cells were cultured on the DMF device, whereas cells cultured in well-plates showed variability in upstream loci knockout efficiencies. This reduction in variability was attributed to culturing on a DMF device being more homogenous and reproducible compared with well plate methods.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Sinha H, Quach AB, Vo PQ, Shih SC | title = An automated microfluidic gene-editing platform for deciphering cancer genes | journal = Lab on a Chip | volume = 18 | issue = 15 | pages = 2300–2312 | date = July 2018 | pmid = 29989627 | doi = 10.1039/C8LC00470F }}</ref>