Microfluidic Devices for Automation of Assays on Drosophila Melanogaster for Applications in Drug Discovery and Biological Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug discovery is a long and expensive process, which usually takes 12-15 years and could cost up to ~$1 billion. Conventional drug discovery process starts with high throughput screening and selection of drug candidates that bind to specific target associated with a disease condition. However, this process does not consider whether the chosen candidate is optimal not only for binding but also for ease of administration, distribution in the body, effect of metabolism and associated toxicity if any. A holistic approach, using model organisms early in the drug discovery process to select drug candidates that are optimal not only in binding but also suitable for administration, distribution and are not toxic is now considered as a viable way for lowering the cost and time associated with the drug discovery process. However, the conventional drug discovery assays using Drosophila are manual and required skill operator, which makes them expensive and not suitable for high-throughput screening. Recently, microfluidics has been used to automate many of the operations (e.g. sorting, positioning, drug delivery) associated with the Drosophila drug discovery assays and thereby increase their throughput. This review highlights recent microfluidic devices that have been developed for Drosophila assays with primary application towards drug discovery for human diseases. The microfluidic devices that have been reviewed in this paper are categorized based on the stage of the Drosophila that have been used. In each category, the microfluidic technologies behind each device are described and their potential biological applications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".