A Cell Viability and Utility Index (CVUI) for wildlife fibroblast biobanking: framework development and preliminary empirical validation
Calatayud, N. E.; Jacobs, L.; Hetz-Rodriguez, J.; Chan, Y.; Rowe, K. C.; Rowe, K.; Roberts, K.; Date, K.
Show abstract
Wildlife biobanking depends on consistent, reproducible cell culture outcomes, yet no standardised framework exists for assessing culture quality across taxa or for integrating quality metrics into institutional collections management systems. Here, we present the Cell Viability and Utility Index (CVUI), a scored pipeline framework validated in a pilot study of 154 culture rounds from 46 species held in the Ian Potter Australian Wildlife Biobank at Museums Victoria Research Institute. The CVUI was adapted from the Wildlife Sperm Index (Jacobs et al., 2026) and assigns weighted scores encompassing four sequential culture stages -- establishment, first passage, expansion, and cryobanking -- with a continuous viability modifier applied at the cryobanking stage. Survival analysis identified individual animal identity as the primary source of variance in culture establishment, whereas taxon was the primary predictor of first-passage success. Beyond first passage, failure rates were too low to reliably assess either effect, with critical attrition concentrated at the earliest pipeline stages. These findings informed the differential weighting of CVUI components and have direct implications for workflow prioritisation and banking strategy. Monitoring can now be targeted at establishment and first passage, the stages where intervention has the greatest impact, with taxon-specific attention warranted at first passage and individual-level attention at establishment, while the robustness of the late-stage protocol means that banking yield is largely determined before a culture reaches P1. Integration of CVUI scores into collections management platforms such as Axiell EMu (Electronic Museum) would transform passive record-keeping into active decision support, enabling real-time quality tracking, early flagging of at-risk cultures, and longitudinal benchmarking of biobank performance across species, collectors, and tissue types. This framework provides a foundation for optimising wildlife fibroblast biobanking protocols, developing taxon-specific culture standards, and expanding standardised quality assessment across wildlife biobanks nationally and internationally.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- From Ice Cores to Dinosaurs: Physical Collections Managers' Research Data Curation Perceptions and Behaviors 92%
- Evaluation of nanopore sequencing for increasing accessibility of eDNA studies in biodiverse countries 91%
- Balancing the supply and demand for taxonomy: an analysis of European taxonomic capacity and policy needs. 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Balancing Barcoding and Genomics: gDNA Quality in Insect Vouchers after HotSHOT DNA extraction 92%
- Unlocking inaccessible historical genomes preserved in formalin 92%
- A validated workflow for rapid taxonomic assignment and monitoring of a national fauna of bees (Apiformes) using high throughput barcoding 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The effect of ethanol concentration on the morphological and molecular preservation of insects for biodiversity studies 90%
- Genomic DNA extraction optimization and validation for genome sequencing using the marine gastropod Kellet's whelk 90%
- Access to Scientific Literature by the Conservation Community 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Closely related, yet phenotypically different - Genome assemblies of two sister species of widow spiders: Latrodectus hasselti and L. katipo, Theridiidae 87%
- Whole genome assembly and annotation of the King Angelfish (Holacanthus passer) gives insight into the evolution of marine fishes of the Tropical Eastern Pacific 86%
- Genome Assembly of the Roundjaw Bonefish (Albula glossodonta), a Vulnerable Circumtropical Sportfish 86%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.