Design and Implementation of High-Throughput Screening Assays

  • David J. PowellEmail author
  • Robert P. Hertzberg
  • Ricardo Macarrόn
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1439)


HTS remains at the core of the drug discovery process, and so it is critical to design and implement HTS assays in a comprehensive fashion involving scientists from the disciplines of biology, chemistry, engineering, and informatics. This requires careful consideration of many options and variables, starting with the choice of screening strategy and ending with the discovery of lead compounds. At every step in this process, there are decisions to be made that can greatly impact the outcome of the HTS effort, to the point of making it a success or a failure. Although specific guidelines should be established to ensure that the screening assay reaches an acceptable level of quality, many choices require pragmatism and the ability to compromise opposing forces.

Key words

Bioassay Phenotypic Drug screening Human Methodology 



The authors are grateful to the many colleagues at GlaxoSmithKline past and present who helped over the years to shape the screening process and to build the collective knowledge succinctly described in this introduction.


  1. 1.
    Macarrón R, Banks MN, Bojanic D et al. (2011) Impact of high-throughput screening in biomedical research. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wassermann AM, Camargo LM, Auld DS (2014) Composition and applications of focus libraries to phenotypic assays. Front Pharmacol 5:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horman SR, Hogan C, Delos Reyes C, Lo F, Antzcak C (2015) Challenges and opportunities towards enabling phenotypic screening of complex and 3D cell models. Future Med Chem 7(4):513–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shalem O, Sanjana NE, Hartenian E et al. (2014) Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343(6166):84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nicodeme E, Jeffrey KL, Shaefer U et al. (2010) Suppression of inflammation by a synthetic histone mimic. Nature 468:1119–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Comley J (2014) HTS Metrics and future directions trends 2014.
  7. 7.
    Drewry D, Macarrón R (2010) Enhancements of screening collections to address areas of unmet medical need: an industry perspective. Curr Opin Chem Biol 14:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Macarrón R (2006) Critical review of the role of HTS in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 11:277–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shoichet BK (2006) Screening in a spirit haunted world. Drug Discov Today 11:607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baell J, Holloway G (2010) New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. J Med Chem 53:2719–2740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inglese J, Johnson RL, Simeonov A et al. (2007) High-throughput screening assays for the identification of chemical probes. Nat Chem Biol 3:466–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wigle T, Herold JM, Senisterra GA et al. (2010) Screening for inhibitors of low-affinity epigenetic peptide-protein interactions. J Biomol Screen 15(1):62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Debad JD, Glezer EN, Wohlstadter JN, Sigal GB (2004) Clinical and biological applications of ECL. In: Bard AJ (ed) Electrogenerated chemiluminescence. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 43–78Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lowe DM, Gee M, Hasmam C et al. (2014) Lead discovery for human kynurenine 3-monooxygenase by high-throughput rapidfire mass spectrometry. J Biomol Screen 19:508–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schroeder KS, Neagle BD (1996) FLIPR: a new instrument for accurate, high throughput optical screening. J Biomol Screen 1:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomsen W, Frazer J, Unett D (2005) Functional assays for screening GPCR targets. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16:655–665Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farre C, Fertig N (2012) HTS techniques for patch clamp-based ion channel screening—advances and economy. Expert Opin Drug Discov 7(6):515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fan F, Wood KV (2005) Bioluminescent assays for high-throughput screening. Assay Drug Dev Technol 5:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Assay Guidance Manual Version 4.1 (2005) Eli Lilly and Company and NIH Chemical Genomics Center. Accessed Jun 2015
  20. 20.
    Cheng YC, Prussof W (1973) Relationship between the inhibition constant (Ki) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol 22:3099–3108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bush K (1983) Screening and characterization of enzyme inhibitors as drug candidates. Drug Metab Rev 14:689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tipton KF (1980) Kinetics and enzyme inhibition studies. In: Sandler M (ed) Enzyme inhibitors as drugs. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burt D (1986) Receptor binding methodology and analysis. In: O’Brien RA (ed) Receptor binding in drug research. Decker, New York, pp 4–29Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gupta S, Indelicato S, Jethwa V et al. (2007) Recommendations for the design, optimization, and qualification of cell-based assays used for the detection of neutralizing antibody responses elicited to biological therapeutics. J Immunol Methods 321:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Airenne KJ, Hu YC, Kost T et al. (2013) Baculovirus: an insect-derived vector for diverse gene transfer applications. Mol Ther 21(4):739–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lundholt B, Scudder K, Pagliaro L (2003) A simple technique for reducing edge effect in cell-based assays. J Biomol Screen 8:566–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lutz MW, Menius JA, Choi TD et al. (1996) Experimental design for high-throughput screening. Drug Discov Today 1:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taylor P, Stewart F, Dunnington DJ et al. (2000) Automated assay optimization with integrated statistics and smart robotics. J Biomol Screen 5:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang JH, Chung TDY, Oldenburg KR (1999) A simple statistical parameter for use in evaluation and validation of high throughput screening assays. J Biomol Screen 4:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iversen PW, Eastwood BJ, Sittampalam GS, Cox KL (2006) A comparison of assay performance measures in screening assays: signal window, Z′ factor, and assay variability ratio. J Biomol Screen 11:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Malo N, Hanley JA, Cerquozzi S, Pelletier J, Nadon R (2006) Statistical practice in high-throughput screening data analysis. Nat Biotechnol 24:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gough AH, Chen N, Shun TY et al. (2014) Identifying and quantifying heterogeneity in high content analysis: application of heterogeneity indices to drug discovery. PLoS One 9(7):1932–6203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barnett V (1974) Elements of sampling theory. The English Universities Press, London, pp 42–46Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Coma I, Clark L, Diez E et al. (2009) Process validation and screen reproducibility in high-throughput screening. J Biomol Screen 14:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Powell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert P. Hertzberg
    • 2
  • Ricardo Macarrόn
    • 3
  1. 1.Alternative Drug DiscoveryGSK PharmaceuticalsHertsUK
  2. 2.GSK Pharmaceuticals R&DPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Alternative Drug DiscoveryGSK PharmaceuticalsUpper ProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations