This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1087057105285610v1 11/3/247    most recent 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 Similar articles in PubMed 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 Iversen, P. W. Articles by Cox, K. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Iversen, P. W. Articles by Cox, K. L. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Comparison of Assay Performance Measures in Screening Assays: Signal Window, Z' Factor, and Assay Variability Ratio

Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly & Company, Indianapolis, Indiana; 303 W. Broadway St. Decorah, IA 52101 piversen{at}lilly.com

Brian J. Eastwood

G. Sitta Sittampalam

Karen L. Cox

Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly & Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

In this article, the authors compare the assay performance measures, signalwindow, Z' factor, and assay variability ratio. They examine their mathematical formulae for similarities and differences, describe their statistical sampling properties using the results of a computer simulation, and illustrate their usewith example data. Based on these results, the authors recommend the Z' factor as a preferredmeasure of assay performance for screening assays and point out that none of thesemeasures are adequate for characterizing concentration-response assays.

Key Words: signal window • Z' factor • assay variability ratio • assay validation

This version was published on April 1, 2006

Journal of Biomolecular Screening, Vol. 11, No. 3, 247-252 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1087057105285610


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. L. Sykes and V. M. Avery Development of an Alamar BlueTM Viability Assay in 384-Well Format for High Throughput Whole Cell Screening of Trypanosoma brucei brucei Bloodstream Form Strain 427 Am J Trop Med Hyg, October 1, 2009; 81(4): 665 - 674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X. D. Zhang, P. F. Kuan, M. Ferrer, X. Shu, Y. C. Liu, A. T. Gates, P. Kunapuli, E. M. Stec, M. Xu, S. D. Marine, et al. Hit selection with false discovery rate control in genome-scale RNAi screens Nucleic Acids Res., August 1, 2008; 36(14): 4667 - 4679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X. D. Zhang, A. S. Espeseth, E. N. Johnson, J. Chin, A. Gates, L. J. Mitnaul, S. D. Marine, J. Tian, E. M. Stec, P. Kunapuli, et al. Integrating Experimental and Analytic Approaches to Improve Data Quality in Genome-wide RNAi Screens J Biomol Screen, June 1, 2008; 13(5): 378 - 389. [Abstract] [PDF]

				X. D. Zhang Novel Analytic Criteria and Effective Plate Designs for Quality Control in Genome-Scale RNAi Screens J Biomol Screen, June 1, 2008; 13(5): 363 - 377. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. Song, B. Buelow, A.-L. Perraud, and A. M. Scharenberg Development and Validation of a Cell-Based High-Throughput Screening Assay for TRPM2 Channel Modulators J Biomol Screen, January 1, 2008; 13(1): 54 - 61. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. Sui and Z. Wu Alternative Statistical Parameter for High-Throughput Screening Assay Quality Assessment J Biomol Screen, March 1, 2007; 12(2): 229 - 234. [Abstract] [PDF]