Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Biomolecular Screening
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1087057109335262v1
14/5/444    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Janzen, W. P.
Right arrow Articles by Popa-Burke, I. G.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Janzen, W. P.
Right arrow Articles by Popa-Burke, I. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Advances in Improving the Quality and Flexibility of Compound Management

William P. Janzen and Ioana G. Popa-Burke*

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Ioana.G.Popa-Burke{at}gsk.com.


   Abstract
The process of drug discovery has evolved considerably since the advent of high-throughput screening (htS) in the 1980s. experts and opinion leaders today are agreeing that the current trend in the field is a focus on increasing overall quality (target, screening, and compounds), use of multiple screening approaches for lead discovery, and more flexibility in the process. the associated need for increased flexibility and quality control to support existing htS paradigms as well as lower throughput approaches such as fragment screening, computational chemistry, focused library building, and centralized lead optimization support has required an evolution in compound management (cm, aka sample management or library management). although there is much less published peer-reviewed data in cm, due to its historical links to htS, it has followed very similar trends. in recent years, the focus in cm has been increasingly in compound quality and increased flexibility of the process, as opposed to number of compounds dispensed and speed of dispensing, which were standard metrics and indicators used not so long ago. ideally, to screen the highest quality sample for every assay, one would start with a correct identity and pure solid, make a correct concentration solution in water or water-soluble/assay-compatible solvent that would allow 100% solubilization, and screen it immediately in a biological assay. neither cm nor screening has advanced sufficiently to deliver this ideal scenario, but many significant advancements have been made in recent years both in terms of quality of compounds in stores and flexibility of the process, which will be reviewed herein. (Journal of Biomolecular Screening XXXX:xx-xx)

First published on May 29, 2009, doi:10.1177/1087057109335262

Journal of Biomolecular Screening 2009;14:444.

A more recent version of this article appeared on June 1, 2009


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