The transition from manual to robotic high throughput screening (HTS) in the last few years has made it feasible to screen hundreds of thousands of chemical entities against a biological target in less than a month. This rate of HTS has increased the visibility of bottlenecks, one of which is assay optimization. In many organizations, experimental methods are generated by therapeutic teams associated with specific targets and passed on to the HTS group. The resulting assays frequently need to be further optimized to withstand the rigors and time frames inherent in robotic handling. Issues such as protein aggregation, ligand instability, and cellular viability are common variables in the optimization process. The availability of robotics capable of performing rapid random access tasks has made it possible to design optimization experiments that would be either very difficult or impossible for a person to carry out. Our approach to reducing the assay optimization bottleneck has been to unify the highly specific fields of statistics, biochemistry, and robotics. The product of these endeavors is a process we have named automated assay optimization (AAO). This has enabled us to determine final optimized assay conditions, which are often a composite of variables that we would not have arrived at by examining each variable independently. We have applied this approach to both radioligand binding and enzymatic assays and have realized benefits in both time and performance that we would not have predicted a priori. The fully developed AAO process encompasses the ability to download information to a robot and have liquid handling methods automatically created. This evolution in smart robotics has proven to be an invaluable tool for maintaining high-quality data in the context of increasing HTS demands.
References
1.
Fisher, R.A. (1935-1966). The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
2.
Haaland, P.D. (1989). Experimental Design in Biotechnology, Marcel Dekker, New York.
3.
Lutz, M.W., Menius, J.A., Choi, T.D., Gooding Laskody, R., Domanico, P.L., Goetz, A.S., Saussy, D.L. (1996). Experimental design for high throughput screening. Drug Discov. Today1(7):277-286.
4.
Taylor, P.B., Stewart, F.P., Quinn, S.T., Vaidya, K.S., Dunnington, D.J. (1998). The Elimination of Assay Optimization Bottlenecks with Factorial Design and Robotics, 4th Annual SBS Conference, Baltimore, MD, IS-3.
5.
Boleda, M.D., Briones, P., Farres, J., Tyfield, L., Pi, R. (1996). Experimental design: A useful tool for PCR optimization. Biotechniques21:134-140.
6.
Reiken, S.R., Van Wie, B.J., Sutisna, H., Kurdikar, D.L., Davis, W.C. (1994). Efficient optimization of ELISAs. J. Immunol. Methods177:199-206.
7.
Young, S.S., Hawkins, D.M. (1995). Analysis of a 29 full factorial chemical library. J. Med. Chem.38:2784-2788.
8.
Oh, S., Rheem, S., Sim, J., Kim, S., Baek, Y. (1995). Optimizing conditions for the growth of Lactobacillus casei YIT 9018 in tryptone-yeast extract-glucose medium by using response surface methodology. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.61:3809-3814.
9.
Pool, J.L., Cushman, W.C., Saini, R.K., Nwachuku, C.E., Battikha, J.P. (1997). Use of the factorial design and quadratic response surface models to evaluate the fosinopril and hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in hypertension. Am. J. Hypertens.10:117-123.
10.
Zhang, J.-H., Chung, T.D.Y., Oldenburg, K.R. (1999). A simple statistical parameter for use in evaluation and validation of high throughput screening assays. J. Biomol. Screen.4:67-73.
