This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Appell, K. C. Articles by Chelsky, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Appell, K. C. Articles by Chelsky, D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Biological Screening of a Large Combinatorial Library

Phanmacopeia, Inc., 101 College Rd. East, Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Thomas D. Y. Chung

Phanmacopeia, Inc., 101 College Rd. East, Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Michael J. H. Ohlmeyer

Phanmacopeia, Inc., 101 College Rd. East, Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Nolan H. Sigal

Phanmacopeia, Inc., 101 College Rd. East, Princeton, New Jersey 08540

John J. Baldwin

Phanmacopeia, Inc., 101 College Rd. East, Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Daniel Chelsky

Phanmacopeia, Inc., 101 College Rd. East, Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Encoding technology has allowed for the creation of libraries of 50,000 or more low-molecular-weight compounds for biological testing. The current challenge is to properly and efficiently screen among these compounds for useful biological activities. In this example, actives against two related G-protein coupled receptors were sought from a combinatorial library of 56,000 members. The library was synthesized on solid phase using the split synthesis method and photochemically released for testing. At a screening concentration of 0.5-1 /LM, 86 unique structures were identified as active against one receptor and 24 were active against the other. Due to the random nature of compound sampling, five library equivalents or 280,000 beads were screened to ensure greater than 99% representation of library members. As a result, many actives appeared multiple times in the screen, verifying the encoding process. Further confirmation was obtained by resynthesis and testing of predicted active structures. A clear bias for specific "R" groups at each point of variation in the combinatorial library with little overlap between the two receptors has produced a clear structure-activity relationship on which to base further work.

Journal of Biomolecular Screening, Vol. 1, No. 1, 27-31 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/108705719600100111


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. J. Mintzer, K. C. Appell, A. Cole, A. Johns, R. Pagila, M. A. Polokoff, I. Tabas, R. M. Snider, and J. A. Meurer-Ogden A Novel High-Throughput Screening Format to Identify Inhibitors of Secreted Acid Sphingomyelinase J Biomol Screen, April 1, 2005; 10(3): 225 - 234. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. D.Y. Chung Screen Compounds Singly: Why Muck It Up? J Biomol Screen, April 1, 1998; 3(3): 171 - 173. [PDF]

				D. Maclean, J. R. Schullek, M. M. Murphy, Z.-J. Ni, E. M. Gordon, and M. A. Gallop Encoded combinatorial chemistry: Synthesis and screening of a library of highly functionalized pyrrolidines PNAS, April 1, 1997; 94(7): 2805 - 2810. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]