Further comparison of primary hit identification by different assay technologies and effects of assay measurement variability

被引:29
作者
Wu, X [1 ]
Sills, MA [1 ]
Zhang, JH [1 ]
机构
[1] Novartis Inst Biomed Res, Leads Discovery, Cambridge, MA USA
关键词
high-throughput screening; assay comparison; AlphaScreen (TM); TR-FRET; assay variability; assay concordance;
D O I
10.1177/1087057105275628
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
High-throughput screening (HTS) has grown rapidly in the past decade, with many advances in new assay formats, detection technologies, and laboratory automation. Recently, several studies have shown that the choice of assay technology used for the screening process is particularly important and can yield quite different primary screening outcomes. However, because the screening assays in these previous studies were performed in a single-point determination, it is not clear to what extent the difference observed in the screening results between different assay technologies is attributable to inherent assay variability and day-to-day measurement variation. To address this question, a nuclear receptor coactivator recruitment assay was carried out in 2 different assay formats, namely, AlphaScreen (TM) and time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer, which probed the same biochemical binding events but with different detection technologies. For each assay format, 4 independent screening runs in a typical HTS setting were completed to evaluate the run-to-run screening variability. These multiple tests with 2 assay formats allow an unambiguous comparison between the discrepancies of different assay formats and the effects of the variability of assay and screening measurements on the screening outcomes. The results provide further support that the choice of assay format or technology is a critical factor in HTS assay development.
引用
收藏
页码:581 / 589
页数:9
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
ELMER P, S4077 ALPH SCREEN TM
[2]   A comparison of ALPHAScreen, TR-FRET, and TRF as assay methods for FXR nuclear receptors [J].
Glickman, JF ;
Wu, X ;
Mercuri, R ;
Illy, C ;
Bowen, BR ;
He, Y ;
Sills, M .
JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR SCREENING, 2002, 7 (01) :3-10
[3]   Novel detection strategies for drug discovery [J].
Hemmilä, IA ;
Hurskainen, P .
DRUG DISCOVERY TODAY, 2002, 7 (18) :S150-S156
[4]  
HENTZ N, 2003, ANN M SOC BIOM SCREE
[5]   High-throughput screening: new technology for the 21st century [J].
Hertzberg, RP ;
Pope, AJ .
CURRENT OPINION IN CHEMICAL BIOLOGY, 2000, 4 (04) :445-451
[6]  
KASHEM M, 2003, ANN M SOC BIOM SCREE
[7]   Managing the drug discovery/development interface [J].
Kennedy, T .
DRUG DISCOVERY TODAY, 1997, 2 (10) :436-444
[8]   How many leads from HTS? [J].
Lahana, R .
DRUG DISCOVERY TODAY, 1999, 4 (10) :447-448
[9]   Comparison of assay technologies for a tyrosine kinase assay generates different results in high throughput screening [J].
Sills, MA ;
Weiss, D ;
Pham, Q ;
Schweitzer, R ;
Wu, X ;
Wu, JZJ .
JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR SCREENING, 2002, 7 (03) :191-214
[10]  
STANCATO L, 2001, ANN M SOC BIOM SCREE