| |
The following has been kindly supplied by
J Major, S
Peters and colleagues at AstraZeneca
(AZ) and provides an illustration
of how Asset is being used within a HTS environment. |
 |
| |
| Comparison
of assays run manually and on Asset |
|
| |
assay type |
batch
size |
run
time |
people
hours |
CV
(average) |
|
batch
size |
run
time |
people
hours |
CV
(average) |
| |
ELISAB |
NA |
NA |
NA |
-8% |
|
180 |
27 |
3 |
3.50% |
| |
Mammalian cell-based |
100 |
9 |
5 |
10.60% |
|
260 |
11 |
1 |
5.80% |
| |
Yeast cell-based |
80 |
25 |
5 |
11.60% |
|
260 |
25.5 |
1 |
8.10% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
- manual assays used multidrops for
liquid handling, stand-alone incubators
and readers.
Plates were moved/loaded by hand. |
| B-
The ELISA was not run as full HTS>
The manual data was obtained from smaller
experiments. |
|
|
|
 |
| |
- Through the CVs noted above, it has been demonstrated
that Asset enables maximised Z’ and the
broadest assay format flexibility at the highest
throughputs
- The “people hours” indicate the
radical reduction in FTE required to support
screening campaigns, as compared to manual methods
Alongside performance, reliability is another
critical factor for systems in use in HTS environments.
AZ have two Asset systems which are routinely
run for extended periods without intervention,
as the following data illustrates:
- system 1 - 21 runs, 5802 plates = 2,223,000
wells without intervention
- system 2 - 24 runs, 6547 plates = 2,514,000
wells without intervention
|
| |
Asset
screened over 10 million data points in its first
year of operation at AZ and one of their systems
is now being extended to cope with increasingly
complex assays. |
| |
|
