2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ddtec.2015.03.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reporting biological assay screening results for maximum impact

Abstract: A very large corpus of biological assay screening results exist in the public domain. The ability to compare and analyze this data is hampered due to missing details and lack of a commonly used terminology to describe assay protocols and assay endpoints. Minimum reporting guidelines exist that, if followed, would greatly enhance the utility of biological assay screening data so it may be independently reproduced, readily integrated, effectively compared, and rapidly analyzed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We have shown how to process samples and managing libraries in IPK herein. In order to allow screening campaigns to find hits or drug candidates from different types of assays, it is essential to provide sufficient information regarding the sample space . The constituency of the library, an indication of the size or number of libraries and management of samples for the assay should be included.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have shown how to process samples and managing libraries in IPK herein. In order to allow screening campaigns to find hits or drug candidates from different types of assays, it is essential to provide sufficient information regarding the sample space . The constituency of the library, an indication of the size or number of libraries and management of samples for the assay should be included.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pharmaceutical industry, public and private research institutions, peer‐reviewed journals, and regulatory agencies have all recognized and responded to this crisis through multiple measures. Recent initiatives include incentivizing transparency, enhancing oversight, and standardizing protocols and reporting measures through open‐access databases and specific guidelines issued by scientific journals (Bolton, 2015; Olsen, 2014; Prescott & Civil, 2013; Reiss, 2017; Worthy, 2015). Table 1 describes several key projects begun toward addressing the reproducibility crisis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While these issues with scalability could be described as a relatively minor nuisance in a small laboratory, the field of drug discovery has lately been undergoing a renaissance of open data (Clark, Williams & Ekins, 2015;Hersey, Senger & Overington, 2012;Ecker & Williams-Jones, 2012;Williams, Wilbanks & Ekins, 2012). Services such as PubChem provide a truly massive resource (Helal et al, 2016); PubChem alone provides more than a million unique bioassay descriptions, and is growing rapidly (Bolton, 2015). 1 Such data are supplemented by carefully curated resources like ChEMBL (Gaulton et al, 2012), which are much smaller but have strict quality control mechanisms in place.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%