DOE:Layout 1 14/1/10 19:54 Page 43
Assays
DOE software packages
Survey respondents rated their familiarity with Figure 4: Familiarity with DOE software packages
commercial DOE software packages and
or approaches
approaches as highest for Beckman Coulter AAO
(Automated Assay Optimization) (Figure 4). This
Beckman Coulter AAO 2.28
was followed by SAS JMP™ and Stat-Ease Design-
SAS JMP™ 2.02
Expert®. However, it should be pointed out that
Stat-Ease Design-Expert® 1.86
the level of familiarity with all commercial prod-
Stat-Ease Design-Ease® 1.57
ucts listed was between only moderately familiar MINITAB 1.39
and unfamiliar (ie they don’t know it). The biggest
SPSS-PASW Statistics 1.30
concerns of those respondents using and/or famil-
MKS Umetrics MODDE 1.29
StatSoft STATISTICA® 1.23
iar with DOE, was that commercial DOE software
Rectangular Experimental Designs
1.07
packages can lead to illogical biology recommen-
for Multi-Unit Platforms (RED-MUPs)
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
dations (29% concerned) or were not biology user Rating SCORE 1 to 5 (where 1 = unfamiliar (don’t know), and 5 = very familiar (user))
friendly (26% concerned) (Figure 5). Together
© HTStec 2009
these findings suggest that DOE software vendors
currently are not doing a very good job making
assay developers aware of their products, and most
vendors have limited understanding of biology
Figure 5: Respondents’ concerns about commercial
applications and screening requirements for their
products. Of those survey respondents using
DOE software
and/or familiar with DOE, nearly all have found
the needed to integrate different DOE software
Can lead to illogical biology recommendations 29%
packages using Microsoft Excel or a similar tool,
Not biology user friendly 26%
with the majority (37%) using an Excel template
to describe the factors to be investigated (Figure 6).
Not integrated with liquid handling 21%
If end users have to resort to this type of fix to
Too complex – have difficulty interpreting findings 21%
make DOE approaches doable in AD, it further
Too statistical 18%
highlights that commercial software vendors need
to better understand the application and that what
Too general – not geared to biochemistry or biology applications 16%
is on offer today only partial supports AD. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
% Responding
© HTStec 2009
The need for better DOE training
Greater than 50% of respondents admitted to hav-
ing never been properly trained in DOE. This may
reflect the fact that the type of DOE training on
Figure 6: Respondents need to integrate different
offer currently does not meet their needs. The
majority (41%) of respondents thought that the
DOE software packages using Microsoft Excel or
most useful DOE training was a fully integrated
similar tool
approach on-site (ie one which included interfac-
ing the DOE software package with an automated
Used an Excel template to describe factors to be investigated 37%
liquid handler and the biological assay), this was Import DOE software output into Excel to
23%
create dispenser template or script
followed by biology application(s) specific training
Export reader output into an Excel template
21%
(35% responding) (Figure 7).
prior to analysis in DOE software
Used Excel as an essential bridge between dispenser or multiple
19%
dispensers and a DOE software package
What’s needed to drive wider
Constructed our own DOE analysis in Excel 15%
uptake of DOE?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Survey respondents rated better understand-
No. responding (all respondents)
© HTStec 2009
ing/greater knowledge of DOE as what was most
needed to drive the wider uptake or greater use of
DOE. This was followed by easier implementation,
easier interpretation of data, and then software
that directly links the statistical design and auto-
mated liquid handler programming (Figure 8).
However, it should be noted that the ratings for all
Drug Discovery World Winter 2009/10 43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88