Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Comparative Study of Fluorescence Assays in Screening for BRD4
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 102018 (English)In: Assay and drug development technologies, ISSN 1540-658X, E-ISSN 1557-8127, Vol. 16, no 7, p. 372-383Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Fluorescence assay technologies are commonly used in high-throughput screening because of their sensitivity and ease of use. Different technologies have their characteristics and the rationale for choosing one over the other can differ between projects because of factors such as availability of reagents, assay performance, and cost. Another important factor to consider is the assay susceptibility to artifacts, which is almost as important as the ability of the assay to pick up active compounds. Spending time and money on false positives or missing the opportunity to build chemistry around false negatives is something that every drug project tries to avoid. We used a BET family Bromodomain, BRD4(1), to explore the outcome of a screening campaign using three fluorescent assay technologies as primary assays. A diverse 7,038 compound set was screened in fluorescence lifetime, fluorescence polarization, and homogeneous time-resolved fluorescence to look at primary hit rates, compound overlap, and hit confirmation rates. The results show a difference between the fluorescence assay technologies with three separate hit lists and some overlap. The confirmed hits from each assay were further evaluated for translation into cells (NanoBRET (TM)). Most of the actives confirmed in cells originated from compounds that overlapped between the assays. In addition, a well-annotated set of compounds with undesirable mechanism of inhibition was screened against BRD4(1) to compare the ability to discriminate true hits from artifact compounds. The results indicate a difference between the assays in their ability to generate false positives and negatives.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 16, no 7, p. 372-383
Keywords [en]
fluorescence methods, FP, FLT, BRD4
National Category
Biological Sciences Pharmacology and Toxicology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-162018DOI: 10.1089/adt.2018.850ISI: 000446997800001PubMedID: 30307314OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-162018DiVA, id: diva2:1263700
Available from: 2018-11-16 Created: 2018-11-16 Last updated: 2018-11-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nicolaus, Felix
By organisation
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics
In the same journal
Assay and drug development technologies
Biological SciencesPharmacology and Toxicology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 350 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf