3.9 Article

A cell-based ultra-high-throughput screening assay for identifying inhibitors of D-amino acid oxidase

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR SCREENING
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 481-487

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1087057106288181

关键词

D-amino acid oxidase; DAO; cell-based enzyme assay; high-throughput screening; uHTS; schizophrenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enzymes are often considered less druggable targets than ligand-regulated proteins such as G-protein-coupled receptors, ion channels, or other hormone receptors. Reasons for this include cellular location (intracellular vs. cell surface), typically lower affinities for the binding, of small molecules compared to ligand-specific receptors, and binding (catalytic) sites that are often charged or highly polar. A practical drawback to the discovery of compounds targeting enzymes is that screening of compound libraries is typically carried out in cell-free activity assays using purified protein in an inherently artificial environment. Cell-based assays, although often arduous to design for enzyme targets, are the preferred discovery toot for the screening of large compound libraries. The authors have recently described a novel cell-based approach to screening for inhibitors of a phosphatase enzyme and now report on the development and implementation of a homogeneous 3456-well plate assay for D-amino acid oxidase (DAO). Human DAO was stably expressed in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells, and its activity was measured as the amount of hydrogen peroxide detected in the growth medium following feeding the cells with D-serine. In less than 12 weeks, the authors proved the concept in 96- and then 384-well formats, miniaturized the assay to the 3456-well (nanoplate) scale, and screened a library containing more than I million compounds. They have identified several cell-permeable inhibitors of DAO from this cell-based high-throughput screening, which provided the discovery program with a few novel and attractive lead structures.

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

3.9
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