Analysis and Implementation of an Electronic Laboratory Notebook in a Biomedical Research Institute.pdf

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Analysis and Implementation of an Electronic
Laboratory Notebook in a Biomedical
Research Institute
Santiago Guerrero1,4
*, Gwendal Dujardin1,4
, Alejandro Cabrera-Andrade3
, César Paz-y-
Miño3
, Alberto Indacochea1,4,5
, Marta Inglés-Ferrándiz1,4
, Hima Priyanka Nadimpalli1,4
,
Nicola Collu2,4
, Yann Dublanche2,4
, Ismael De Mingo2,4
, David Camargo2,4
*
1 Gene Regulation, Stem Cells and Cancer Programme, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), The
Barcelona Institute for Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain, 2 Information and Communications
Technology Department, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), The Barcelona Institute for Science and
Technology, Barcelona, Spain, 3 Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud,
Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador, 4 Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain,
5 Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain
* santiago.guerrero@crg.eu (SG); david.camargo@crg.eu (DC)
Abstract
Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) will probably replace paper laboratory notebooks
(PLNs) in academic research due to their advantages in data recording, sharing and secu-
rity. Despite several reports describing technical characteristics of ELNs and their advan-
tages over PLNs, no study has directly tested ELN performance among researchers. In
addition, the usage of tablet-based devices or wearable technology as ELN complements
has never been explored in the field. To implement an ELN in our biomedical research insti-
tute, here we first present a technical comparison of six ELNs using 42 parameters. Based
on this, we chose two ELNs, which were tested by 28 scientists for a 3-month period and by
80 students via hands-on practical exercises. Second, we provide two survey-based stud-
ies aimed to compare these two ELNs (PerkinElmer Elements and Microsoft OneNote) and
to analyze the use of tablet-based devices. We finally explore the advantages of using
wearable technology as ELNs tools. Among the ELNs tested, we found that OneNote pres-
ents almost all parameters evaluated (39/42) and both surveyed groups preferred OneNote
as an ELN solution. In addition, 80% of the surveyed scientists reported that tablet-based
devices improved the use of ELNs in different respects. We also describe the advantages of
using OneNote application for Apple Watch as an ELN wearable complement. This work
defines essential features of ELNs that could be used to improve ELN implementation and
software development.
Introduction
The increasing adoption of digital technology in scientific research has led to an inevitable
transition from traditional paper laboratory notebooks (PLNs) to digital ones. Electronic labo-
ratory notebooks (ELNs) are replacing PLNs across the pharmaceutical industry and, to a lesser
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0160428 August 1, 2016 1 / 11
a11111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Guerrero S, Dujardin G, Cabrera-Andrade
A, Paz-y-Miño C, Indacochea A, Inglés-Ferrándiz M,
et al. (2016) Analysis and Implementation of an
Electronic Laboratory Notebook in a Biomedical
Research Institute. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0160428.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160428
Editor: Lennart Martens, UGent / VIB, BELGIUM
Received: February 24, 2016
Accepted: July 19, 2016
Published: August 1, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Guerrero et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper.
Funding: This work was supported by the Spanish
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the
Catalan Government through the Economy and
Knowledge Department and the Health Department.
This work was also supported by doctoral fellowships
from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness and “La Caixa” to MIF and HPN,
respectively. SG was supported by a post-doctoral
fellowship from “Fundació la Marató de TV3”. GD has
received funding from the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme under the

extent, academic research. In the past few years, the number of ELNs has increased consider-
ably from open-source software solutions to commercial ones.
Rubacha et al. [1] reviewed 35 ELNs commercially available and grouped them into five cat-
egories according to their primary market audience (research and development, quality assur-
ance/quality control, Biology, Chemistry, and multidiscipline). 20 ELNs were classified in
research and development category (e.g., LABtrack) but only two of them present multidisci-
plinary features (PerkinElmer E-Notebook and IDBS E-WorkBook). This classification also
reveals a balance in the ELN design complexity from multidisciplinary ELNs to domain-spe-
cific solutions (e.g., Studylog for animal research studies).
Recently, to expand the choice of multidisciplinary ELNs, Day et al. [2] improved a generic
ELN [3] by introducing plug-in based chemistry functionalities. Also, Voegele et al. [4] devel-
oped an open-source multidisciplinary ELN based on WordPress system. In addition, non-sci-
entific digital notebooks such as Evernote and Microsoft OneNote have been successfully
implemented as ELNs [5,6]. Despite detailed analysis of ELNs [1,5–8], a survey-based study
comparing their characteristics has not been documented so far.
The recent increase in use of touchscreen technology has further stimulated the develop-
ment of ELN software to improve its functionalities in tablet-based devices [9,10]. This will
contribute to the transition from PLNs to ELNs by giving the users a physical support to record
and visualize data. Wearable technology could also enhance the intended use of ELNs by pro-
viding immediate data access during experimentation (e.g., protocols). However, no study has
directly explored the usage of tablet-based devices nor wearable technology as ELN
complements.
With an aim to implement an ELN in our biomedical research institute, we performed a
technical comparison of six ELNs and conducted two survey-based studies to compare two
ELNs. In addition, use of tablet-based devices and wearable technology as ELN complements
was tested.
Materials and Methods
ELN evaluation
Evernote Free and Premium versions (Version 5.8.6.7519), Microsoft OneNote 2013 (Version
15.0.4763.1000 for Windows) linked to on-premise Microsoft SharePoint 2013, PerkinElmer
E-Notebook and Elements and Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA Notebook were technically evalu-
ated based on 5 main parameters including 42 subcategories. Free trial software licenses were
obtained for all ELNs.
Survey-based studies
Following technical evaluation, we selected two ELNs (PerkinElmer Elements and Microsoft
OneNote linked to on-premise Microsoft SharePoint 2013) to be tested in two survey-based
studies.
First, 28 scientists from 8 different laboratories volunteered for a 3-month pilot study: 17
tested only Microsoft OneNote, 5 only Elements and 6 both programs. Before the pilot study,
training courses were lectured by Microsoft OneNote and Elements experts. During the testing
period all experiments were recorded electronically by the volunteers. In addition, the partici-
pants used 20 iPads and 4 tablet-laptop hybrids during the study.
To evaluate both ELNs and to study the usage of tablet-based devices, group and individual
questions were included. Group questions were answered by each laboratory after analysis and
discussion of both solutions. Flexibility, Collaboration, Ease of searching, Image editing and
Analysis and Implementation of an Electronic Laboratory Notebook
Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No
661051.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.

Accessibility parameters were rated by the volunteers using a 5-point scale (Excellent-Good-
Average-Fair-Poor).
Second, a two days full-time workshop on ELNs was conducted for an independent group
of 80 students using OneNote and Elements. Students were asked to evaluate the aforemen-
tioned parameters of both programs via hands-on practical exercises. For example, students
evaluated Ease of searching by finding text in pre-made experiments/notes or rated Image edit-
ing by working with agarose gels images. The above-mentioned 5-point scale was also used to
rate both programs.
We also explored the functionalities of Apple Watch as a wearable ELN tool using Microsoft
OneNote application.
Results and Discussion
ELN selection
We chose 5 ELNs based on the literature and previous experience from other biomedical
research institutes. Thus, we select two non-scientific electronic notebooks, Evernote Free and
Premium versions and Microsoft OneNote linked to on-premise Microsoft SharePoint 2013
due to their successful implementation in academic research (Machina & Wild, 2013; Barber
et al., 2009). Moreover, the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine (Germany) has effec-
tively implemented Microsoft OneNote as an ELN solution within a highly collaborative envi-
ronment. We also selected two scientific ELNs, PerkinElmer E-Notebook and Elements.
According to Rubacha et. al. (2011), E-Notebook is suitable for general science functionalities
with specific applications in Biology compared with 33 electronic notebooks. Moreover, the
E-Notebook has been successfully implemented at Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (Bel-
gium). Due to the success of this ELN, we also chose Elements, a new web-based solution also
developed by PerkinElmer. To broaden the analysis, we also include Dassault Systèmes BIO-
VIA Notebook.
ELN evaluation
ELNs were technically evaluated based on recommendations and conclusions of Machina &
Wild (2013) and Walsh & Cho (2013). Thus, 5 main parameters including 42 subcategories
were studied (Table 1). Overall, OneNote presents almost all subcategories evaluated (39/42),
followed by Evernote Premium version (31/42), BIOVIA Notebook (30/42), E-Notebook (28/
42), Evernote Free version (26/42) and Elements (23/42). The evaluation of these parameters
are detailed below.
Flexibility. This parameter evaluates the ability of an ELN to allow the users to create their
own workflow design. This takes into account how easy/flexible it is to collect data (e.g., drag-
and-dropping, file embedding and drawing), organize experiments and projects (e.g., data visu-
alization and hyperlinking) and to edit images or tables. Only OneNote presents all tested sub-
categories followed by E-Notebook, Elements and Evernote versions (Table 1).
Ease of searching. ELN searching options greatly improve the task of finding specific
information among notebooks such as DNA sequences, antibodies or protocol-related infor-
mation. We evaluated this by searching text in projects, experiments, images (Optical Charac-
ter Recognition) or different type of files (Table 1). OneNote, BIOVIA Notebook and
E-Notebook have been able to find text in most of the tested files compared with Elements and
both Evernote versions.
Collaboration. Academic and pharmaceutical research is often performed within a strong
collaborative environment including multiple team members, facilities and internal or external
laboratories from different disciplines (e.g., Chemistry, Proteomics) and preferences

(Windows, Mac and Linux). Thus ELN’s collaboration and accessibility features are major
advantages compared with PLNs and should be prioritized in ELN software development.
In this concern, all ELNs present similar options to easily share information (Table 1). However,
concerning accessibility, OneNote, BIOVIA Notebook and Evernote versions could be used in all
tested platforms. Although E-Notebook only runs on Windows, virtualization technologies (e.g.,
VMware or Citrix) are available to allow non-Windows users access software like E-Notebook.
In modern technological environments, software only designed for Windows is less attrac-
tive if the use case is to have the broadest possible flexibility on technologies accessing the ELN
Table 1. ELNs evaluation.
Evaluation Parameters Evernote
Free
Evernote
Premium
Onenote Elements E-Notebook BIOVIA
Notebook
Ease of
searching
Text in pages/notes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Text in images (Optical Character Recognition,
OCR)
yes yes yes no no yes
Text in pdf files yes (1) yes yes (2) yes yes yes
Text in scientific files no no no no no yes (7)
Text in microsoft office files Word no yes yes (2) no yes yes
PowerPoint no yes yes (2) no yes yes
Excel no yes yes (2) no yes yes
Text in illustrator files no no yes (2) yes yes no
Flexibility Ability to link other pages/
notes
yes yes yes yes yes yes
Ability to drag and drop yes yes yes no yes yes
Ability to create your own
workflow design
yes yes yes no yes yes
Drawing and recording Freehand drawing no no yes no yes no
Audio recording yes yes yes yes yes no
Video recording no no yes yes yes no
Image editing yes yes yes yes yes yes
Microsoft Office files
embedding
Word no no yes no (4) yes yes
PowerPoint no no yes Yes yes yes (8)
Excel no no yes yes yes yes
Collaboration Ability to share pages/
notes
Activity constantly updated
in shared notes
Presentation mode for
meetings
no yes yes no no no
Sharing modes Can view yes yes yes yes yes yes
Can edit yes yes yes yes yes yes
Can edit and invite yes yes no yes yes yes
Accessibility Windows version yes yes yes yes (3) yes yes (9)
Mac version yes yes yes yes (3) no yes (3)
Linux yes (3) yes (3) yes (3) yes (3) no yes (10)
Web-based version yes yes yes yes no yes
External
resources
Android/iOS application yes yes yes no no no
Tablet-Smartphone yes yes yes yes (3) no yes (3)
Smartwatches yes yes yes no no no
Smartglasses yes yes yes no no no
Smartpens yes yes yes no no no
(Continued)

software system. Elements, being a fully web-based solution, is suitable to be used in all
platforms.
External resources. This category evaluates the potential of an ELN to be used with exter-
nal tools such as tablets/smartphones, wearable technology (e.g., smartwatches or smartglasses)
or smartpens. These tools could improve the use of an ELN in several manners. Tablets and
smartphones connected to smartpens could give the users a physical support to record and
visualize data in PLN-like manner. Wearable technology could provide users with immediate
data access during experimentation in biosafety level 3 and 4 laboratories or radioactive rooms.
Only OneNote and Evernote versions are able to use the aforementioned external tools. Ele-
ments, being a fully web-based solution, can be operated in tablets/smartphones but it cannot
be connected yet to smartpens or wearable technology (Table 1).
Security and legality. ELNs overcome security and legality issues due to their ability to
date and archive legible and unchangeable content in a secure and retrievable way. Similarly,
ELNs provide options to authenticate experiments with a legally accepted electronic signature.
In contrast, PLNs could be easily manipulated to change dates, results or any other content.
Here we evaluated the ability of the ELNs to store data in different manners and to provide
options to achieve regulatory compliance and other related aspects (Table 1).
Evernote versions, OneNote and BIOVIA Notebook are able to store data locally and in a
cloud-based manner. E-Notebook stores data locally while Elements uses cloud storage. How-
ever, both programs along with OneNote can store data using private storage servers (Table 1).
Table 1. (Continued)
Evaluation Parameters Evernote
Free
Evernote
Premium
Onenote Elements E-Notebook BIOVIA
Notebook
Security and
legality
Data storage Local yes yes yes no yes yes
Cloud based yes yes yes yes no yes
Hybrid (local/cloud
based)
yes yes yes no no no
Private server no no yes yes yes no
Compatibility with
regulatory compliance
FDA 21 CFR part
11
no no yes (5) no yes yes
EudraLex Volume 4
Annex 11
no no yes (5) no yes (6) yes
Others Ability to encrypte
text
yes yes yes no no no
Versioning no yes yes yes yes yes
Ability to sign
documents
no no no yes yes yes
Summary: 26/42 31/42 39/42 23/42 28/42 30/42
(1) When.pdf file is not inserted in attachment mode.
(2) When file was inserted as a printout.
(3) Only through web version.
(4) Word documents are transformed to.pdf.
(5) When OneNote files are stored under specific Microsoft SharePoint configurations.
(6) Under specific configurations performed by PerkinElmer.
(7) In chemical structures.
(8) Can upload as file attachment or in PDF section
(9) NET client and web version.
(10) Not fully functional.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160428.t001

A major data security concern lies on the usage of cloud-based systems [11–13]. Data secu-
rity and privacy protection issues could arise in all stages of data life cycle (Generation !
Transfer ! Use ! Share ! Storage ! Archival ! Destruction) and a comprehensive and
integrated security solution is needed [11–13]. In addition, physical access to servers hosting
the data is restricted when information is stored ex situ. As a result, sensitive data (e.g, Patient-
derived information) is at risk from insider attacks. Indeed, The Cloud Security Alliance Report
(2016) ranked insider attacks in the top 12 biggest threats to cloud computing [13]. To over-
come those problems an on-premise private storage system could be implemented. In this con-
cern, E-Notebook, Elements and OneNote provide this option.
Concerning regulatory compliance, we have evaluated the compatibility of the ELNs to
achieve compliance for two international regulations: 1) The Food and Drug Administration's
Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Part 11 (FDA 21 CFR Part 11) and 2) The EudraLex, The
Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union, Volume 4, Good Manufacturing
Practice Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use, Annex 11: Computerised Systems
(EudraLex Volume 4, Annex 11).
FDA 21 CFR Part 11 is a U.S. regulation that sets specifications on electronic records and
electronic signatures (ERES). EudraLex Volume 4, Annex 11 is the European equivalent of the
FDA 21 CFR Part 11; however, Annex 11 is a guideline not a regulation, as would be Part 11. It
is important to notice that Part 11 and Annex 11 apply to medical related industries such as
pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies. These regulations do not apply to most aca-
demic research institutes.
Evernote versions and Elements do not provide options to reach compliance for any of
these regulations. Conversely, E-Notebook has been developed to allow it to be installed,
deployed and used in a FDA 21 CFR Part 11 compliant manner. Under specific configurations
performed by PerkinElmer, E-Notebook could also reach Annex 11 compliance. BIOVIA
Notebook is also compliant with Part 11 and Annex 11.
Downloadable OneNote version is not compliance per se; however, OneNote, under specific
Microsoft SharePoint 2013 configurations, is able to provide customizable options to achieve
compliance. In this regard, Microsoft provides a SharePoint 2013 configuration guidance for
Part 11 compliance [14]. However, this document assists towards qualification while compli-
ance is completely up to the implementing party. In addition, software development companies
provide services to reach Part 11 and Annex 11 compliance (e.g. Montrium and Paragon
Solutions).
With respect to law issues, PLN is considered as the gold standard to protect researchers
from legal matters; e.g. intellectual property or fraud accusation. However, an ELN compliant
with Part 11 is considered as a legally accepted PLN replacement, even for the stronger regu-
lated pharmaceutical industry. Thus, downloadable OneNote version per se is not accepted as a
PLN replacement.
Regarding ERES, BIOVIA Notebook, Elements and E-Notebook provide options to elec-
tronically sign documents. However, experiments from Evernote and OneNote can be exported
en masse to.pdf format and signed electronically.
ELN selection for the survey-based studies
The 42 parameters evaluated in Table 1 do not represent a comprehensive score-based
approach to choose the best possible system. Instead, this technical comparison serves as a
pointer towards ELN adoption criteria based on the institutional needs. Thus, to further choose
two ELNs to be tested in two survey-based studies, we prioritized three subcategories related to
specific needs of our institute.

As an academic biomedical research institute, working with patient-derived samples and
projects involving sensitive data, we first prioritized “Security/Data storage/Private server” sub-
category. In this concern, Evernote versions and BIOVIA Notebook were discarded due to
their inability to store data in an on-premise private server. We believe that ELN deployment
under an on-premise private storage system will avoid data security issues [11–13] related to
public cloud services such as the one provided by Evernote.
Since our institute is structured within a highly collaborative environment including multi-
ple computational platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux), we second prioritized “Collaboration/
Accessibility” subcategory. As this study aims to address the usage of tablet-based devices as
ELNs complements, we finally prioritized “External resources/Tablet-smartphone” parameter.
Thus, we discarded E-Notebook due to its inability to run in non-Windows platforms and tab-
let-based devices. In addition, most of our computational platforms did not meet the system
requirements to run this program and/or its virtualization technologies. We finally selected
OneNote and Elements for a proof-of-concept pilot study.
Survey-based studies
Two survey-based studies were performed to test Elements and OneNote (See Materials and
Methods). First, a group of 28 scientists tested both programs using tablet-based devices as
ELNs complements for a 3-month period. Five main parameters (Flexibility, Collaboration,
Accessibility, Ease of searching and Image editing) were rated by the volunteers using a 5-point
scale (Fig 1A).
Overall, the majority of surveyed scientists rated OneNote as good/excellent in all parame-
ters. Regarding Elements, the majority of volunteers rated Accessibility as good/excellent
(72%), Collaboration and Ease of searching parameters as average/good (72%), Flexibility as
fair/average (72%) and Image editing as fair/poor (63%) (Fig 1A).
We observed a correlation between the technical evaluation (Table 1) and the responses of
surveyed researchers (Fig 1A). For example, OneNote, which presents all Flexibility subcategories
(Table 1), was highly evaluated by the respondents (Fig 1A), while Elements, which presents 6
out of 10, was rated as fair/average by 72% of volunteers. Additionally, Elements and OneNote,
suitable for all operating system (Table 1), obtained a similar evaluation in Accessibility criteria.
Regarding group questions, 88% of volunteers agreed that ELNs could effectively replace
PLNs and improve data recording and sharing (Fig 1B). After discussion with their team mem-
bers, all surveyed researchers finally preferred OneNote as an ELN solution to be implemented
in our biomedical research institute (Fig 1B). This is puzzling considering that Elements was
designed as a scientific ELN and OneNote as a general note-taking program. Scientific ELNs
have clear advantages over general note-taking programs in standardized experimental settings
where experiments are performed routinely with high details on processed data. To understand
why researchers preferred OneNote over Elements, we analyzed the data generated during the
testing period. We found that all researchers performed non-standardized assays with little
experimental details. This could explain why researchers preferred a more flexible solution
such as OneNote. However, more research is needed to shed light on this particular aspect.
With respect to the usage of tablet-based devices as ELNs complements, 80% of surveyed
researchers reported that those devices improved the usage of ELNs in different manners. For
instance, 67% reported that ELN-tablets can substitute printed protocols and 88% reported that
those devices are more effective to discuss data in personal meetings compared to PLNs. How-
ever, tablets are not appropriate to replace the daily scrap papers used at workbench (Fig 1B).
Second, an independent group of 80 students evaluated the aforementioned parameters via
hands-on practical exercises (See Materials and Methods). Overall, the majority of students

rated OneNote as excellent in all parameters except for Image editing, which was evaluated as
good (Fig 2A). Regarding Elements, all parameters were rated as good by the majority of the
participants. Similar to the first group, the majority of students (69%) preferred OneNote as an
ELN solution and 85% agreed that ELNs could effectively replace PLNs and improve data
recording and sharing in their laboratories (Fig 2B).
Wearable technology as ELNs tools
We finally explored the usage of Apple Watch as a wearable ELN tool using Microsoft One-
Note application. This application allows users to have direct access to their notes and visualize
data. For instance, users can consult their Protocols during experimentation (Fig 3A–3C); nev-
ertheless, only text-based notes can be visualized. This is a significant advantage when working
with large protocols or in places where PLNs are not usually used such as culture or radioactive
rooms. Apple Watch can also be used as a substitute for commonly used bench equipment
such as timers (Fig 3D) and chronometers (Fig 3E) and provide users with other advantages
such as calculators, alarms and reminders.
Fig 1. Results of the survey-based study amongst 28 scientists. (A) Individual questions. OneNote and Elements features were
evaluated by 28 researchers using a 5-point scale (Poor to Excellent). (B) Group questions. Histogram showing responses of surveyed
researchers concerning ELN selection and implementation and tablet-based devices as ELNs complements.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160428.g001

Conclusions and Future Perspectives
This work defines important aspects of ELNs characteristics summarized in 5 main parameters
that could be used to evaluate other ELNs and to improve their implementation and software
development. It is important to notice that these parameters should be prioritized depending
of the institutional needs. For example, pharmaceutical laboratories should prioritize regula-
tory compliance (Part 11 or Annex 11), while most academic institutions do not require these
regulations.
ELN security and legality parameters are still a matter of discussion and debate among
researchers and should be prioritized in future ELN software development. For instance,
options to store data in on-premise private servers would be highly desired to avoid cloud-
based security issues [11–13]. Additionally, private clouds services, dedicated to a single orga-
nization, are available in the market. These systems along with strong data encryption and
stringent security measures could also lead to a secure ELN usage.
Concerning the results of the survey-based studies, researchers and students positively rated
Elements and OneNote in all parameters. However, both surveyed groups preferred OneNote
as an ELN solution compared to Elements, which was specifically designed for scientific pur-
poses. This tendency towards OneNote could be due to its flexibility of gathering data from
non-standardized experiments. Nevertheless, more research is needed to understand this spe-
cific aspect. We finally conclude that tablet-based devices and wearable technology such as
smart watches could effectively be used as ELN complements.
Fig 2. Results of the survey-based study amongst 80 students. (A) OneNote and Elements features were evaluated by 80 students
using a 5-point scale (Poor to Excellent). (B) Histogram showing responses of surveyed students concerning ELN selection and
implementation.

Over the past 4 years, several startups have emerged as promising innovative software com-
panies offering powerful ELNs (e.g. Benchling, Hivebench and Labfolder, among others).
Apart from fulfilling key ELN features, some of them also offer bioinformatics-related tools.
For instance, Benchling Lab Notebook presents integrated DNA tools to edit plasmids, design
primers and align sequences. In addition, Hivebench, which was recently acquired by Elsevier,
can now link Elsevier tools (Pure) and Mendeley Data repositories. Although the potential of
these companies is high, their development faces numerous startup-related concerns [15–17].
Despite these challenges, the future appears to be bright for these ELNs.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all E-Notebook, Elements and BIOVIA Notebook experts for their technical
support. We also want to thank all volunteers and all members of the CRG TIC and Legal
departments who participate in this study.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: SG DC. Performed the experiments: SG GD MIF AI
HPN NC DC. Analyzed the data: SG. Wrote the paper: SG GD ACA CPM MIF AI HPN NC
YD IDM DC. Gave technical support and conceptual advice at all stages of the project: NC YD
IDM DC. Designed and performed the survey-based study among 28 researchers: SG MIF
HPN NC YC IDM DC. Designed and performed the survey-based study among 80 students:
SG ACA CPM.
Fig 3. Apple Watch OneNote application as a wearable ELN tool. (A) Snapshot of OneNote (Windows version) showing a scientific protocol
inside a notebook called “Protocols Apple Watch”. (B) Snapshot of Apple Watch OneNote application showing protocols which are synchronized
with OneNote Windows version. (C) Snapshot of a specific protocol named “Thawing Frozen Cells”. (D) Apple Watch timer. (E) Apple Watch
chronometer.

References
1. Rubacha M, Rattan AK, Hosselet SC. A review of electronic laboratory notebooks available in the mar-
ket today. J Lab Autom. 2011; 16: 90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jala.2009.01.002 PMID: 21609689
2. Day AE, Coles SJ, Bird CL, Frey JG, Whitby RJ, Tkachenko VE, et al. ChemTrove: Enabling a Generic
ELN To Support Chemistry through the Use of Transferable Plug-ins and Online Data Sources. J Chem
Inf Model. 2015; 55: 501–509. doi: 10.1021/ci5005948 PMID: 25679543
3. Milsted AJ, Hale JR, Frey JG, Neylon C. LabTrove: A Lightweight, Web Based, Laboratory “Blog” as a
Route towards a Marked Up Record of Work in a Bioscience Research Laboratory. PLoS ONE. 2013;
8: e67460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067460 PMID: 23935832
4. Voegele C, Bouchereau B, Robinot N, McKay J, Damiecki P, Alteyrac L. A universal open-source Elec-
tronic Laboratory Notebook. Bioinforma Oxf Engl. 2013; 29: 1710–1712. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/
btt253
5. Walsh E, Cho I. Using Evernote as an electronic lab notebook in a translational science laboratory. J
Lab Autom. 2013; 18: 229–234. doi: 10.1177/2211068212471834 PMID: 23271786
6. Barber CG, Haque N, Gardner B. “OnePoint”—combining OneNote and SharePoint to facilitate knowl-
edge transfer. Drug Discov Today. 2009; 14: 845–850. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.06.015 PMID:
19596081
7. Machina HK, Wild DJ. Electronic laboratory notebooks progress and challenges in implementation. J
Lab Autom. 2013; 18: 264–268. doi: 10.1177/2211068213484471 PMID: 23592569
8. Gerard Oleksik NM-F. Study of electronic lab notebook design and practices that emerged in a collabo-
rative scientific environment. Proc ACM Conf Comput Support Coop Work CSCW. 2014; 120–133. doi:
10.1145/2531602.2531709
9. Bird CL, Willoughby C, Frey JG. Laboratory notebooks in the digital era: the role of ELNs in record
keeping for chemistry and other sciences. Chem Soc Rev. 2013; 42: 8157–8175. doi: 10.1039/
C3CS60122F PMID: 23864106
10. Giles J. Going paperless: The digital lab. Nature. 2012; 481: 430–431. doi: 10.1038/481430a PMID:
22281576
11. Subashini S, Kavitha V. A survey on security issues in service delivery models of cloud computing. J
Netw Comput Appl. 2011; 34: 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2010.07.006
12. Ali M, Khan SU, Vasilakos AV. Security in cloud computing: Opportunities and challenges. Inf Sci.
2015; 305: 357–383. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2015.01.025
13. Cloud Security Alliance. The Treacherous 12—Cloud Computing Top Threats in 2016 [Internet]. 2016.
Available: https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/assets/research/top-threats/Treacherous-12_
Cloud-Computing_Top-Threats.pdf
14. Microsoft Corporation-Health and Life Sciences Industry Unit, Paragon Solutions Health and Life Sci-
ences Practice. SharePoint 2013 Configuration Guidance for 21 CFR Part 11 Compliance. Revision
1.00. 2013.
15. Crouzier T. Researchers in the cloud. Trends Biochem Sci. 2014; 39: 344–346. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.
2014.06.004 PMID: 25080138
16. Herrmann BL, Gauthier JF, Holtschke D, Berman R, Marmer M. The Global Startup Ecosystem Rank-
ing 2015. Technical report. Compass. 2015.
17. Giardino C, Wang X, Abrahamsson P. Why Early-Stage Software Startups Fail: A Behavioral Frame-
work. In: Lassenius C, Smolander K, editors. Software Business Towards Continuous Value Delivery.
Springer International Publishing; 2014. pp. 27–41. Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/
978-3-319-08738-2_3

Analysis and Implementation of an Electronic Laboratory Notebook in a Biomedical Research Institute.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Analysis and Implementation of an Electronic Laboratory Notebook in a Biomedical Research Institute.pdf (19)

More from Laurie Smith (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Analysis and Implementation of an Electronic Laboratory Notebook in a Biomedical Research Institute.pdf