Primary Cells and Stem Cells in Drug Discovery: Emerging Tools for High-Throughput Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many drug discovery screening programs employ immortalized cells, recombinantly engineered to express a defined molecular target. Several technologies are now emerging that render it feasible to employ more physiologically, and clinically relevant, cell phenotypes. Consequently, numerous approaches use primary cells, which retain many functions seen in vivo, as well as endogenously expressing the target of interest. Furthermore, stem cells, of either embryonic or adult origin, as well as those derived from differentiated cells, are now finding a place in drug discovery. Collectively, these cells are expanding the utility of authentic human cells, either as screening tools or as therapeutics, as well as providing cells derived directly from patients. Nonetheless, the growing use of phenotypically relevant cells (including primary cells or stem cells) is not without technical difficulties, particularly when their envisioned use lies in high-throughput screening (HTS) protocols. In particular, the limited availability of homogeneous primary or stem cell populations for HTS mandates that novel technologies be developed to accelerate their adoption. These technologies include detection of responses with very few cells as well as protocols to generate cell lines in abundant, homogeneous populations. In parallel, the growing use of changes in cell phenotype as the assay readout is driving greater use of high-throughput imaging techniques in screening. Taken together, the greater availability of novel primary and stem cell phenotypes as well as new detection technologies is heralding a new era of cellular screening. This convergence offers unique opportunities to identify drug candidates for disorders at which few therapeutics are presently available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".