What users are saying
The data shows this totally eliminates technician variability when applying the ID.
— Study Director (breeder) – eliminating tech variability
The machine is very impressive. I like it because ear tags fall off and ear notching can be confusing. Also, some studies require imaging, which prevents us from using metal ear tags. So, I like using tattoos for identification.
— Lab Manager (CRO) – ID methods and imaging studies
You have a real niche product here.
— Study Director (breeder) – market for product
You guys really put a lot of thought into the product design and user interface. I have no suggestions for improvements.
— Lab Facility Manager (breeder) – product design and user interface
I am simply amazed. It is truly incredible.
— Technician (breeder) – initial hands-on impressions
I hate ear tags because they fall out, I can’t ear punch, and I could never do hand tattoos. I will buy a machine.
— PI (University) – problems with conventional ID methods
It really is quite an amazing little machine, and am very impressed by the quality, and at the same time, the simplicity of it. Personally, I would not change it or add any additional features… it is perfect like it is!
— Supervisor of Surgical Services (breeder) – quality, simplicity and features
I just bought a hand tattoo system and this is much better. I’ll buy one.
— Director (specialty breeder) – conventional ID methods vs. Labstamp
At the beginning of a carcinogenic study a mouse may cost between $25 and $50. At the end of the study, the value of the animal is $2,000 to $3,000 because of the data. So, if SOMARK can increase the reliability to prevent the misidentification of two mice in one study, the machine just paid for itself. There are front-end cost savings in terms of staff training time and back-end savings by preventing misidentified animals.
— Toxicology Consultant (independent) – misidentified mice in a carcinogenic study
One machine will pay for itself in 3 studies.
— President (CRO) – equipment ROI
We currently ID and tail biopsy our mice at 21 days of age and sort the litter when the genotyping results arrive at day 25. We do this because we don’t have a reliable ID method that allows us to ID and tail biopsy when the animals are younger. The Labstamp should allow us to ID and tail biopsy our mice at 17 days of age and sort when we wean at 21 days of age. This should really improve our processes by reducing cage time, sorting at the time of weaning, and increasing our accuracy when matching genotype results.
— GEM Operations Director (Pharmaceutical company) – identifying mice at a younger age and savings costs
I will not be without one of these in my lab.
— Manager (breeder) – need for equipment
I have asked our manager in life operations to procure one of your mouse tattooers. As I described it to one of our study coordinators, she was very interested in having the equipment available.
— President & CEO (CRO) – study coordinator interest
Our suppliers really need to know about this, if they do not already. They send us pre-identified mice and do contracted work for us. It could solve our ID problems when animals are on-study.
— Senior Research Associate (Pharma) – supplier of pre-identified animals
SOMARK tattoos look great on light skin background and it involves much less time to ID compared with other methods. At most (overwhelming majority) cases tattoos were visible from afar so you don’t need to pick up the mice to read it. So far no fading of tattoos observed. However we had some problems reading the tattoos on darker background and in many cases we have to use flashlight. Still, the read-out was much better than conventional tattoos due to even size and predictability. Overall, SOMARK is still my favorite.
— Senior Technician (breeder) – light and dark skin mice
I think that people were thoroughly impressed and I really feel like you have a great product on your hands.
— Operations Engineer (breeder) – initial impressions
It appears that there is operator variability in applying the animal identification as all conventional methods score both high and low based on the person who administered the identification (method). SOMARK tattoo’s would eliminate this training issue.
— Senior Manager (breeder) – variability of conventional ID methods and training
We get audited by our clients and they don’t think we can read our own IDs. They make us bring the animals out and prove to them that we can read their IDs. They can’t read them, but we can read most of them. They don’t believe us, so we lose trust. This machine would solve our problems.
— Director of Business Development (CRO) – client trust regarding ID reliability
We run a service business providing transgenic models to customers. We currently send customers ear punched animals with the code on a piece of paper and they have difficulty understanding the code and punches. If we send a hand tattoo, the numbers just look sloppy. I like this because we could send animals to customers that look professional with machine-like numbers.