This analysis demonstrates how low-code development platforms expedite software applications in laboratory automation, suggesting significant benefits for biotechnologists.
Conventionally, the initialization of new prototypes and concepts in laboratory automation and life science software applications has required close collaboration between hardware and software experts, as well as lab personnel such as biologists, chemists, biotechnologists, or process engineers. This setup - still common today - often means that the ideas and requests of lab personnel must be translated into software applications by software developers, which frequently results in long development times. Low-Code Development Platforms (LCDPs) seek to address this challenge by providing a way to accelerate application development by reducing dependence on traditional software development methods, empowering lab personnel to build applications without writing extensive amount of code. By offering a visual, drag-and-drop interface, lab personnel can actively participate in the software development process. This helps democratize application creation and can lead to the quick setup of software solutions tailored to laboratory needs. This study demonstrates the implementation of four different use cases in a bioprocessing laboratory environment using an open-source LCDP and commercially available upstream and downstream equipment. The LCDP facilitated the integration and control of different device types with varying communication protocols also enabling dashboarding, monitoring and data processing capabilities. This methodology highlights the suitability of LCDPs for rapidly prototyping and evaluating laboratory and bioprocess automation pipelines, potentially expediting the development of biotechnological production processes and products. All developed components are made available through a publicly accessible repository, facilitating reuse and further development by the scientific community.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Austerjost et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: