Volume 3, Issue 1, Fall 2026

After 13 years of service in our lab, the iCE3 systems are now being phased out as Bio-Techne will be discontinuing support in June 2029. We evaluated both the Maurice and other promising alternatives. As a CRO, we are ultimately guided by our client’s preference. So independent of pure performance excellence, or demonstrated direct equivalence to the iCE3, our client’s preference meant that our chosen solution was the new Bio-Techne instrument, Maurice.

The Maurice system is compatible with Chromeleon, so at long last an icIEF analysis can be completely run under Chromeleon, including full instrument control similar to how we already run LC analysis in our lab.

Our clients, like us, expected this switch over to be relatively straightforward: Simply take the current iCE3 instrument method, translate it into Maurice, and away you go. How hard can it be? But as you might expect, rarely does anything go that smoothly. Instead, we found that the ease of transfer is very method and molecule dependent. Competing icIEF platform manufacturers point to the change in capillary configuration and orientation amongst other things. As, for example, the Maurice icIEF capillary is now vertical rather than horizontal as it is in the iCE3. Although to me, a key factor is just how good and well optimized the original method was; coupled with how well the methods previous performance and data are really understood by those using the method today, as they are rarely the original method developers and validation analysts. 

This presents a classic problem: Analytical methods are expected to evolve throughout their lifecycle, incorporating new technologies when appropriate. However, the adoption of new technologies can reveal previously unknown limitations to the existing method. These limitations can raise more questions than they answer about the original method, the test material and all the associated data. In a GxP / QC world that can present a challenge! A similar phenomenon occurred when some HPLC methods were updated to UPLC, where some “simple” method transfers uncovered previously unknown “new peaks” and sources of variability, which had been invisible before lost in the background. For the Maurice platform, our recommendation is to embrace the change. Though before you begin, ensure you properly understand your historical data; Know what the current method data really looks like beyond the summary tables of final reported results; but also, down to the underlying data so you properly visually understand the natural variability in what an “acceptable” profile can look like. Then consider other changes that can be made to make the method better and easier to run in the lab. For example, the Maurice automation (Maurice OBM) can mix sample aliquots with the Separation Master Mix immediately prior to analysis, potentially leading to a more consistent sample preparation. It also offers native tryptophan fluorescence detection which can improve method sensitivity.

For analysts, the Maurice instrument presents a simpler and easier icIEF instrument with a more straightforward assay and instrument set up. However, “Special features” are emerging as we start to use it more, applying it to different test materials, client test methods, and with a larger pool of regular users of the new instrument and software.

The Maurice system can also run CE-SDS, and its simplicity of use and set up has the potential to rival our current standard CE instrumentation for routine QC analysis. As the need for new CE-SDS analytical methods in our lab arises, we will further evaluate this capability.