$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
We begin by examining representative results from employing this protocol for 96-well lifespan assays. In the first example, the method was used to screen through 30,000 chemicals to successfully identify chemicals that extend the lifespan of C. elegans, and also includes results from the follow-up re-test screen of the best performing chemicals using the same protocol. These results were previously described1. The second example uses the same protocol in a smaller-scale screen of candidate compounds.
Large-scale screen and re-test: The large-scale screen testing 30,000 compounds was performed at a single dose, in duplicate. Each chemical was therefore tested in two wells with an expected total animal population of 20. To accomplish this, three discrete sets of 10,000 compounds (in duplicate) were screened over a period of ~3 months to cover the entire 30,000 compounds. This was done in part, to ensure a manageable amount of manual scoring at the end of the assay and required a total of 260 of the 96-well assay plates in each of the sets. In library stock plates, only 80 wells contained compound; one replicate of 10,000 compounds makes 125 assay plates. This study used 2 replicates with 10 negative control plates in each set. To increase throughput, plates were scored when negative control populations were assessed to have experienced ~99% mortality. All test wells were then examined for live worms.
Chemicals in wells with one live worm were called hits. Chemicals in wells containing more than 1 worm alive were also called hits, and additionally all the worms in those wells (alive and dead) were counted to generate a simple score (percent alive score; the number of alive worms divided by the number of dead worms). Each chemical in the library could therefore be called a hit twice and those hits could, but might not, have scores associated with them. 512 distinct chemicals were called hits (at least once) from the screen of 30,000 compounds. The screen was performed with the intention of identifying potent and/or robust (reproducible) pro-longevity effects. These two different properties may have distinct effects. Potent chemicals could dramatically increase lifespan, in which case we would expect a high percent of worms to be alive in that chemical's well. For robust chemicals, both replicates would be expected to have live worms. The hit list was ranked based on these criteria. 179 of the chemicals yielded high percent alive scores, or were hit in both replicates and were therefore chosen for re-testing. Most of the remaining chemicals that were called hits, but not selected for re-testing, had only contained a single worm alive in one of the replicate wells.
Re-testing of the hits was performed, similar to the primary screen except with 3 replicates (expected total animal population of 30), and careful quantification of the lifespans of the animals in the untreated control plates. These changes were added to aid in comparing the test and control wells. 179 of the chemical hits were re-ordered, diluted to 10 mM, and moved into 96 well plates. Only the inner 24 wells were used for the re-test assay (current versions of this protocol would have used the inner 32 wells as described in the protocol section for re-test screens) and the compounds were re-tested in triplicate with six negative control assay plates treated with DMSO solvent. One negative control plate was scored periodically for total survival (Figure 1A). When approximately 95% of control animals were dead, all plates were completely scored (all treated live and dead worms were counted).
To call hits from the re-test results, a cut-off was made at the average percent alive score of the negative control +2 standard deviations (SD). For the test wells, averaged percent alive (at the time of scoring) scores were calculated by averaging the percent alive score from three replicates for each well. For this particular assay, negative control wells' average percent alive scores were calculated as the average of three replicates for 48 wells (2 sets of triplicate negative control plates). The SD used to call hits from the re-test chemical set was the SD across the 48 negative control averaged percent alive scores. Using this strategy, this study found 57 hits from the re-test library of 179 compounds, demonstrating that a total of 32% of the re-test chemicals tested positive (Figure 1B). Binning of the averaged percent alive scores for the negative control and test wells indicated that the test wells outperformed the control wells (Figure 1C).
Candidate screen: Small scale screens can be performed in a manner similar to the retest described above. Here, we describe the results from a candidate screen with 139 compounds. These candidates were assembled as structures likely to promote longevity. For this screen, we performed 5 replicates of the test plates at two different doses (50 µM and 100 µM). Additionally, we used 8 negative control plates, with a single positive control (NP1) plate containing two different doses; 50 µM and 100 µM.
Negative control plates were monitored until ~90% of animals were dead. At that time, wells were scored by counting live and dead worms in all control wells, and from test wells that contained live worms. The percent alive at the time of scoring were used to calculate averaged percent alive scores for each well. For the negative controls, 32 wells had percent alive scores from 8 replicates. For the positive controls, there were 4 well scores averaged across 4 replicates for each dose. Hits were called for wells with an averaged percent alive score that was greater than the averaged negative control percent alive score +2 SD. This cutoff left 14 hits from the candidate screen and excluded all of the negative control wells. That cutoff also included all of the positive control wells treated at 100 µM and 50% of the positive controls treated at 50 µM. These results are presented here as binned averaged percent alive scores for both the 50 µM (Figure 2A) and the 100 µM (Figure 2B) test screens.
Finally, all plates were re-scored at a late time point, which corresponded to a time when greater than 99% of the negative control treated animals were dead. Those results indicated that the positive control wells far out-performed the negative control and test wells (Figure 2C). While the test wells were slightly better than the negative controls. This latter result is biased by the indication that many of the test wells appeared to exhibit toxicity relative to the control treatment (Table 1), thereby confounding this simple interpretation. This was to be expected, since the candidate library was a true screen of chemicals with unknown biological activity in C. elegans, while the re-test screen was essentially pre-screened for compounds that were not toxic. Since this primary screen was for compounds that lengthened lifespan, significantly toxic chemicals should not have been in the re-test set.

Figure 1: Representative results from a high throughput screen and re-testing
(A) Survivorship curve from a representative negative control plate used in the re-test assay. This curve was constructed from scoring all live and dead worms in the 24 wells used in this assay 4 times over the 18 days of the assay. At day 18 of adulthood, controls were assessed to have ~5% survival and all control test and plates were then also scored. (B) Table summarizing the results of the screen and re-test. (C) Binning of the wells averaged percent alive scores for both control and test conditions from the re-test screen. For controls, scores are from 48 wells each consisting of the average of 3 replicates. Test results are from 179 wells each consisting of the averaged score from three replicates. Figure 1 is reproduced from a previous publication1. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Representative results from a candidate screen
(A) Binning of the results from the 50 µM candidate screen. The 139 test-well results represent the averaged percent alive score from 5 replicates. The 32 negative control results consist of averaged percent alive scores from 8 replicates. The 4 positive control results consist of averaged percent alive scores from 4 replicates (16 total wells containing NP1 at 50 µM). (B) Binning of the results from the 100 µM candidate screen. All is the same as in (A), except that the test wells and positive controls were treated at 100 µM concentrations. The same negative control plates are shown in both (A and B). (C) Representative results from re-scoring the plates at a relatively extreme late time point. Positive controls dramatically outperformed all others, if just accounting for the percent of wells with live worms at this time point, which is biased against test wells as described in main text and Table 1. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Binning of Averaged Percent Alive Scores |
| Grouped Scores | All Dead (0) | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 | >41 |
| Re-test | | | | | | |
| # of (-) Control | 16 | 31 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| # of Test Wells (50µM) | 46 | 69 | 50 | 8 | 3 | 3 |
| | | | | | |
| Candidate Screen | | | | | | |
| # of (-) Control | 0 | 11 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| # of (+) Control (50µM) | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| # of (+) Control (100µM) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| # of Test Wells (50µM) | 94 | 22 | 21 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| # of Test Wells (100µM) | 86 | 25 | 21 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
Table 1: Representative results from binning different screens
Here we present the binning of the averaged percent alive scores from the two screens (re-test and candidate). In the re-test screen, the peak is similar to the negative control with the re-tests outperforming the negative control dramatically on the right (long-lived) side of the table. This indicates the presence of multiple pro-longevity compounds present in the re-test set. In the candidate screen, we see that the peak is in the all dead category, while there is also an apparent signal from the right side of the table. This indicates the presence of pro-longevity compounds in the candidate set, but also indicates the presence of significant toxicity among the candidate set of compounds.