Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Interactive and scalable biology cloud experimentation for scientific inquiry and education

A real-time interactive, fully automated, low-cost and scalable biology cloud experimentation platform could provide access to scientific experimentation for learners and researchers alike.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: A biology cloud experimentation platform that is real-time interactive and scales cost-effectively to large user numbers and versatile applications.
Figure 2: The cloud lab enables biophysics experiments on timescales from seconds to minutes in live and batch modes.
Figure 3: Automonitoring framework and BPU multiplexing enable scaling and robustness of the cloud lab over a timeframe of weeks and demonstrate its potential applicability for long-term microecological studies.
Figure 4: User studies in middle-school and college settings demonstrate utility of platform for face-to-face and online education.


  1. Sia, S.K. & Owens, M.P. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1224–1228 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Corbató, F.J. et al. in Proceedings of the May 1–3, 1962, Spring Joint Computer Conference 335–344 (ACM, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fox, A. Science 331, 406–407 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Check Hayden, E.C. Nature 516, 131–132 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee, J. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 2122–2127 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chinn, C.A. & Malhotra, B.A. Sci. Educ. 86, 175–218 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pedaste, M. et al. Educ. Res. Rev. 14, 47–61 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schweingruber, H. et al. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Academies Press, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bybee, R.W. Science and Children 50, 7–14 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Singer, S., Hilton, M. & Schweingruber, H. (eds.) America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (National Academies Press, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  11. de Jong, T., Linn, M.C. & Zacharia, Z.C. Science 340, 305–308 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Heradio, R. et al. Comput. Educ. 98, 14–38 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wieman, C.E., Adams, W.K. & Perkins, K.K. Science 322, 682–683 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bonde, M.T. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 694–697 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sauter, M. et al. Distance Educ. 34, 37–47 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hossain, Z. et al. in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 3681–3690 (ACM, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Littleford, R.A. Am. Biol. Teach. 22, 551–559 (1960).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Morimoto, K. et al. J. Res. Sci. Educ. 45, 73–77 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cira, N.J. et al. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002110 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee, S.A. et al. in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2593–2602 (ACM, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Iseki, M. et al. Nature 415, 1047–1051 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Romanczuk, P. et al. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 224, 1215–1229 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Romensky, M., Scholz, D. & Lobaskin, V. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20150015 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Krajcˇovicˇ, J., Vesteg, M., & Schwartzbach, S.D. J. Biotechnol. 202, 135–145 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ozasa, K., Lee, J., Song, S., Hara, M. & Maeda, M. Lab Chip 13, 4033–4039 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Etsion, Y. & Tsafrir, D. General purpose timing: the failure of periodic timers. Technical Report 2005–2006 (School of Compututer Science and Engineering, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Purcell, E.M. Am. J. Phys. 45, 3–11 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. National Research Council. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards (Committee on Guidance on Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards, 2015).

  29. Blikstein, P. in Playful User Interfaces (ed. Nijholt, A.) 317–352 (Springer, 2014).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Levy, S.T. & Wilensky, U. Comput. Educ. 56, 556–573 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Harward, V.J. et al. Proc. IEEE 96, 931–950 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Blikstein, P. et al. J. Learn. Sci. 23, 561–599 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gobert, J.D. et al. J. Learn. Sci. 22, 521–563 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Edelson, D.C. J. Learn. Sci. 11, 105–121 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hansen, J.D. & Reich, J. Science 350, 1245–1248 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. US Census Bureau. School Enrollment by Sex and Level, Table 226, (2012).

  37. Ozcan, A. Lab Chip 14, 3187–3194 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Goldstein, R.E. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 47, 343–375 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. van Deursen, A. et al. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 35, 26–36 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Balagaddé, F.K., You, L., Hansen, C.L., Arnold, F.H. & Quake, S.R. Science 309, 137–140 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Skilton, R.A. et al. Nat. Chem. 7, 1–5 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


We are grateful to the members of the Riedel-Kruse and Blikstein Labs, N. Cira, G. Harrison and the teachers and students who participated. This project was supported by an NSF Cyberlearning grant (#1324753) and NSF awards IIS-1216389, OCI-0753324 and DUE-0938075.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingmar H Riedel-Kruse.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Texts and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–10, Supplementary Tables 1–5, Supplementary Notes 1–7 and Supplementary Data (PDF 15592 kb)

Supplementary Movie 1

Illustration of interactive joystick experiment on the platform: A user visits the cloud lab website and runs a live experiment on a particular BPU ('eug15'). In the live view the user tests euglena response to four LEDs one at a time with a virtual joystick, while watching a live video feed of the actual LED going off. The Euglena exhibits negative phototaxis by swimming away from each LED in turn (compare also to Fig. 4a in main paper). (MOV 1863 kb)

Supplementary Movie 2

Batch mode experimentation and a workflow on the cloud lab platform from a user's point of view (for example as in user study Figs. 4a,b ):). A user uploads two batch experiments as text scripts (both JSON and CSV formats) at the same time. The system routes these experiments to the best available BPUs, while avoiding the apparently suboptimal ones. The user then downloads the data from a previously run experiment and investigates a preprocessed video where Euglena and their tracks are automatically traced. This video has a corresponding data file in JSON format that can be processed in Matlab through an API that we provide. This API can export track information in a MS Excel format, CSV, for easier manipulation. (MOV 3035 kb)

Supplementary Movie 3

Examples of Euglena variety of behaviors that can be observed on this platform (passive observation as well as active experimentation): A. Euglena, seen through a 10x objective, responding to all four LED directions applied sequentially. B. Euglena, seen through a 4x objective, responding to all four LED directions applied sequentially. C. Euglena responding to light shone at an angle. D. This clip shows how a Euglena can be virtually controlled to follow a path with our joystick interface. E. The microfluidic chip getting overpopulated as seen through a 10x objective. F. The microfluidic chip getting overpopulated as seen through a 4x objective. G. In some scenarios, the linear motility of the Euglena population tends to decrease while they spin vigorously in response to light. H. Cell division events captured during a time lapse (MOV 2555 kb)

Supplementary Movie 4

Average orientation (in acute angle, degrees) of Euglena population in response to different LED and no-light conditions: No light stimulus was provided during the first 60s when the Euglena were randomly oriented leading to an average acute angle close to 45°. Each LED was then shone by itself for 30s in sequence, and the Euglenas move away from light every time. The average orientation of all the Euglenas per frame is plotted against time, which shows clear measurable alternating Hill type signals. No light was shone during the last 60s when the cell population converged back to random orientations. We ultimately use this orientation to measure responsiveness of a BPU as discussed in section 2.2. (MOV 3266 kb)

Supplementary Movie 5

Illustration of modeling interface as used in second study ( Figs. 4c,d ): 7th and 8th grade students investigated three parameters: surge, coupling and roll that drive a model Euglena to follow a predefined path upon light stimulus with a joystick. Only the name of the surge parameter was exposed while the other two were unnamed for students to find out as an exercise. The video demonstrates different combinations of parameters to demonstrate their effects on the model as well as to highlight the overall descriptive power of this model (compare also Supplementary Video 3 for related real behaviors): A. The simulation is run without changing the initial parameter values, which only sets surge to a non-zero number. The model Euglena propels without responding to any light. B. The coupling parameter is set to a positive number (15). This time the model Euglena exhibits positive phototaxis, i.e. move towards light. C. Coupling is set to a negative number (−15), the Euglena exhibits negative phototaxis as expected but does not respond to the “Right” LED because the model Euglena was sampling light only from the left as there was no spin. D. Roll is set to a small positive number (2), which lets Euglena see light in all directions, but the response is slow which results in a wobbly path with large amplitude upon light changes. E. Roll is set to 4 and the surge is decreased which corresponds to a near optimal setting. In this case, the Euglena responds to light stimulus in manner that is consistent with reality. F. Roll is set to 5 and coupling to a large negative number, which makes Euglena to tumble and spin uncontrollably. (MOV 2388 kb)

Supplementary Movie 6

Illustration of the iLab user study ( Figs. 4e,f ): This video demonstrates how users can operate the cloud lab from a third party education content management website, in this case iLab 6. A student would login with her iLab credentials, and choose one of the tasks assigned by her teacher. A task contains lessons about Euglena and accompanying quizzes. The images used in this lesson were taken from Wikipedia ( In page 3 of this lesson, the student uses a simple interface to design an experiment with light stimulus and timing. The student can get an estimate of how long her experiment will take for the cloud lab to run before submitting it as a batch experiment directly to the cloud lab through the iLab interface. iLab will then fetch the data when the experiment is over and annotated the data with light and timing information which the student can investigate and use to answer further test questions. Due to screen recording, the video player view on page 4 had flickering, which was filtered out for the purpose of clarity. The student can run as many experiments as she wants. (MOV 1870 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hossain, Z., Bumbacher, E., Chung, A. et al. Interactive and scalable biology cloud experimentation for scientific inquiry and education. Nat Biotechnol 34, 1293–1298 (2016).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing