$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
High throughput screening (HTS) is a proven strategy widely adopted for the identification of new therapeutic molecules or for the repositioning of FDA-approved drugs in new medical indications.1 So far, the achieved HTS success can be measured by the plethora of previously discovered drugs. For instance, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor lapatinib used for the treatment of breast cancer, sitagliptin; a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor used as an anti-hyperglycemic drug, and the oral Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor dasatinib used for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia represent few examples of a long list of approved drugs originally discovered by HTS.2 Although the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry has lately suffered from a lack in the discovery of new chemical entities, the likelihood of successful drug discovery can be improved through an increase in the number of pre-clinical candidates displaying modulatory biological/biochemical properties. Accordingly, the development of new HTS assays adapted for phenotypic screening could offer the potential to provide important pharmacological tools for the discovery of new drug hits.3,4,5,6 Furthermore, HTS can now be performed at a faster pace due to significant technological transformations in recent years including custom-designed flexible robotic installations, novel read-out technologies and extensive miniaturization.2,7 Among the factors contributing to the growing interest in the use of phenotypic screening (aka forward pharmacology) is the perception that focusing on functional effects rather than oversimplified reductionist assumptions regarding molecular targets (target-based screening/biochemical reactions) is more likely to show clinical efficacy. Thus, phenotypic screening holds the promise to uncover new potentially therapeutic compounds and molecular pathways of currently untreatable diseases.2
To properly identify inhibitors or activators for a given molecular target or cellular function, a highly sensitive and reliable assay is required in order to differentiate between bona fide hits and false positives. So, what makes a good assay? The quality of a given assay must be first judged by the signal-to-noise ratio (reflected through a Z factor).8 Second, the targeted effect or the goal of the screen should be clearly established. For example, functional cell-based approaches can offer significant advantages for receptor screening as opposed to an assay specifically designed to assess ligand-receptor binding. The reason for this is that the latter approach cannot differentiate between agonist and antagonist ligands.9 In contrast, a cell-based approach is likely to be more effective as receptor function can be directly assessed in a biological phenotype (proliferation, cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, and/or differentiation). However, it must be noted that biochemical assays can provide significant advantages over phenotypic assays as they infringe on a specific intracellular target. A well-optimized biochemical assay will generally have less data scatter than a phenotypic screening while simplifying afterwards investigations related to the drug molecular mechanism of action. However, the major drawback of target-based or biochemical assays is the chance of amplifying the rate of false positive hits that may affect non-specific targets when tested in a biological system (loss of the specificity originally studied in the biochemical assay).10 Although a well-established cut-off point between negative and positive hits can minimize the number of false positives in the primary screening, the use of a physiologically relevant system mimicking the native cellular environment such as intact cells, whole tissue or whole animal remains the core of the assay design pendulum. Therefore, phenotypic screening enables lead discovery with desirable biological/phenotypic effects for diseases with no identified drug targets without having prior knowledge of the compound's activity or mode of action.11
The herein study concerns the development and testing of an optimized and reproducible phenotypic screening based on two important components: a commercially available mouse model and a clustered sub-family of chemical compounds. With respect to the animal model, the assay relies on the use of lymphocytes derived from a mouse strain (Nur77GFP) harboring a bacterial artificial chromosome containing a cassette in which the expression of the green fluorescent protein (GFP) is driven by the Nur77 promoter.12 The hallmark of this stimulation is based on the fact that Nur77 is an immediate early gene up-regulated following T-cell receptor (TCR) or B-cell receptor (BCR) stimulation.12 As for the screening method itself, an approach was used to help avoiding the screening of trivial analogues while minimizing the time needed to assess a large chemical library (>105 compounds). To do so, a database of chemical compounds selected by medicinal chemists using virtual screening tools was exploited to identify topologically similar compounds using known active seed structures as references. This approach allowed us to screen 4,398 compounds representing an overall library of over 136,000 chemical entities.