4.7 Review

Origin and evolution of high throughput screening

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 152, 期 1, 页码 53-61

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0707373

关键词

high throughput screening; natural products; synthetic compounds; DMSO; 96-well format; ADMET-HTS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article reviews the origin and evolution of high throughput screening (HTS) through the experience of an individual pharmaceutical company, revealing some of the mysteries of the early stages of drug discovery to the wider pharmacology audience. HTS in this company (Pfizer, Groton, USA) had its origin in natural products screening in 1986, by substituting fermentation broths with dimethyl sulphoxide solutions of synthetic compounds, using 96-well plates and reduced assay volumes of 50-100 mu l. A nominal 30mM source compound concentration provided high mu M assay concentrations. Starting at 800 compounds each week, the process reached a steady state of 7200 compounds per week by 1989. Screening in the Applied Biotechnology and Screening Group was centralized with screens operating in lock-step to maximize efficiency. Initial screens were full files run in triplicate. Autoradiography and image analysis were introduced for 125 I receptor ligand screens. Reverse transcriptase (RT) coupled with quantitative PCR and multiplexing addressed several targets in a single assay. By 1992 HTS produced `hits' as starting matter for approximately 40% of the Discovery portfolio. In 1995, the HTS methodology was expanded to include ADMET targets. ADME targets required each compound to be physically detected leading to the development of automated high throughput LC-MS. In 1996, 90 compounds/week were screened in microsomal, protein binding and serum stability assays. Subsequently, the mutagenic Ames assay was adapted to a 96-well plate liquid assay and novel algorithms permitted automated image analysis of the micronucleus assay. By 1999 ADME HTS was fully integrated into the discovery cycle.

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

4.7
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