Fluorescence assay technologies are commonly used in high-throughput screening because of their sensitivity and ease of use. Different technologies have their characteristics and the rationale for choosing one over the other can differ between projects because of factors such as availability of reagents, assay performance, and cost. Another important factor to consider is the assay susceptibility to artifacts, which is almost as important as the ability of the assay to pick up active compounds. Spending time and money on false positives or missing the opportunity to build chemistry around false negatives is something that every drug project tries to avoid. We used a BET family Bromodomain, BRD4(1), to explore the outcome of a screening campaign using three fluorescent assay technologies as primary assays. A diverse 7,038 compound set was screened in fluorescence lifetime, fluorescence polarization, and homogeneous time-resolved fluorescence to look at primary hit rates, compound overlap, and hit confirmation rates. The results show a difference between the fluorescence assay technologies with three separate hit lists and some overlap. The confirmed hits from each assay were further evaluated for translation into cells (NanoBRET™). Most of the actives confirmed in cells originated from compounds that overlapped between the assays. In addition, a well-annotated set of compounds with undesirable mechanism of inhibition was screened against BRD4(1) to compare the ability to discriminate true hits from artifact compounds. The results indicate a difference between the assays in their ability to generate false positives and negatives.
Keywords: BRD4; FLT; FP; fluorescence methods.