Answers.Body: <p>Here's one way I <a href="http://mscreen.lsi.umich.edu/mscreenwiki/index.php/COORDINATE" rel="nofollow noreferrer">found</a>:</p>
  
  <pre><code>A01..A48
  ..
  Z01..Z48
  AA01..AA48
  ..
  AF01..AF48
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Pros:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Excel does it like that with columns</li>
  <li>it's clear what's the row and what's the column</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Cons:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>alphabetic sorting of well ids does not what you want</li>
  <li>when reading A01 it's not clear whether the plate size is 384 or 1536</li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-23T07:50:05.783Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-04-23T07:50:05.783Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user829755
Answers.Body: <p>and here's a scheme I made up myself:</p>
  
  <pre><code>AA01..AA48
  ..
  AZ01..AZ48
  BA01..BA48
  ..
  BF01..BF48
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Pros:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>alphabetic sorting of well ids does what you expect</li>
  <li>it's clear what's the row and what's the column</li>
  <li>it's easy to distinguish well ids of 384-well plate from those of a 1536-well plate</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Cons:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>it's not used anywhere AFAIK</li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-23T07:54:09.660Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-04-23T07:54:09.660Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user829755
Body: <p>There's a commonly accepted convention for naming the wells in a 384-well-plate: </p>
  
  <pre><code>A01..A24
  B01..B24
  ..
  P01..P24
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>It's concise and unambiguous and thus very useful.
  For 1536-well plates (32x48) it's more difficult because there's more rows than letters in the alphabet. It seems there's no standard.
  Which nomenclatures are out in the field and which is the best?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-01-14T11:14:32.387Z
Comments.Text: Looking into standards/conventions of how to organize biological data most certainly is relevant to bioinformatics, and best answers can be envisioned: "There is now standard X", "Commonly used convention Y", "There is none yet, but Z has proven useful". I'm glad this helpful question was not closed/deleted.
Comments.UserDisplayName: rvf
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-23T07:07:22.087Z
Comments.Text: could someone with more reputation than me create and add the tags screening and mtp? and maybe modify the tag hts so that it includes high-throughput-screening?
Comments.UserDisplayName: user829755
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-23T08:12:05.340Z
Comments.Text: Can you perhaps modify this such that it's on-topic here? As is, it seems neither directly related to bioinformatics nor a question with a best answer (the goal of the stackexchange network).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Devon Ryan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-23T08:29:47.003Z
Comments.Text: the goad is to find the most suitable scheme for naming well ids in a piece of bioinformatics software, so I don't really understand your concern. Is high-throughput-screening not a part of bioinformatics?
Comments.UserDisplayName: user829755
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-23T08:39:29.707Z
Comments.Text: Screening is relevant, but random "how do I label wells" questions aren't necessarily.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Devon Ryan
Tags: <hts>
Title: well identifiers in a 1536-well mtp plate
ThreadText: # well identifiers in a 1536-well mtp plate
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-23)
  
  There's a commonly accepted convention for naming the wells in a 384-well-plate:
  
  ```
  A01..A24
  B01..B24
  ..
  P01..P24
  
  ```
  
  It's concise and unambiguous and thus very useful.
  For 1536-well plates (32x48) it's more difficult because there's more rows than letters in the alphabet. It seems there's no standard.
  Which nomenclatures are out in the field and which is the best?
  
  **Tags:** hts
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: could someone with more reputation than me create and add the tags screening and mtp? and maybe modify the tag hts so that it includes high-throughput-screening?  
  > **username_2**: Can you perhaps modify this such that it's on-topic here? As is, it seems neither directly related to bioinformatics nor a question with a best answer (the goal of the stackexchange network).  
  > **username_0**: the goad is to find the most suitable scheme for naming well ids in a piece of bioinformatics software, so I don't really understand your concern. Is high-throughput-screening not a part of bioinformatics?  
  > **username_2**: Screening is relevant, but random "how do I label wells" questions aren't necessarily.  
  > **username_1**: Looking into standards/conventions of how to organize biological data most certainly is relevant to bioinformatics, and best answers can be envisioned: "There is now standard X", "Commonly used convention Y", "There is none yet, but Z has proven useful". I'm glad this helpful question was not closed/deleted.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2018-04-23. Score: 2
  
  Here's one way I [found](http://mscreen.lsi.umich.edu/mscreenwiki/index.php/COORDINATE):
  
  ```
  A01..A48
  ..
  Z01..Z48
  AA01..AA48
  ..
  AF01..AF48
  
  ```
  
  Pros:
  
  * Excel does it like that with columns
  * it's clear what's the row and what's the column
  
  Cons:
  
  * alphabetic sorting of well ids does not what you want
  * when reading A01 it's not clear whether the plate size is 384 or 1536
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2018-04-23. Score: 2
  
  and here's a scheme I made up myself:
  
  ```
  AA01..AA48
  ..
  AZ01..AZ48
  BA01..BA48
  ..
  BF01..BF48
  
  ```
  
  Pros:
  
  * alphabetic sorting of well ids does what you expect
  * it's clear what's the row and what's the column
  * it's easy to distinguish well ids of 384-well plate from those of a 1536-well plate
  
  Cons:
  
  * it's not used anywhere AFAIK
  
  
  ---
  
  