4.1 Article

Evaluation of Compound Optical Interference in High-Content Screening

期刊

SLAS DISCOVERY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 321-329

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2472555217707725

关键词

cell-based assays; chemoinformatics; compound repositories; high-content screening; image analysis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support grant [5 P30 CA008748-44]
  2. Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research
  3. Experimental Therapeutics Center of MSKCC
  4. William Randolph Hearst Fund in Experimental Therapeutics
  5. Lillian S Wells Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Compound optical interference remains an inherent problem in chemical screening and has been well documented for biochemical assays and less so for automated microscopy-based assays. It has also been the assumption that the latter should not suffer from such interference because of the washing steps involved in the process, thus eliminating the residual nonspecific compound effects. Instead, these compounds may have no relevance to the actual target, and as such, compound optical interference contributes to a number of false-positives, resulting in a high attrition rate during subsequent follow-up studies. In this report, we analyze the outcome of a high-content screen using enhanced green fluorescent protein as a reporter in a gain-of-function cell-based assay in search of modulators of the micro RNA (miRNA) biogenesis pathway. Using a previously validated image-based biosensor, we screened a diverse library collection of similar to 315,000 compounds covering natural and synthetic derivatives in which 1130 positives were identified to enhance green fluorescence expression. Lateral confirmation and dose-response studies revealed that all of these compounds were the result of optical interference and not specific inhibition of miRNA biogenesis. Here, we highlight the chemical classes that are susceptible to compound optical interference and discuss their implications in automated microscopy-based assays.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据