Rapid Assessment and Visualization of Normality in High-Content and Other Cell-Level Data and Its Impact on the Interpretation of Experimental Results

When investigators monitor effects on a population of cells following a perturbation, these events rarely occur in a classical normal (or Gaussian) distribution. A normal distribution is, however, explicitly assumed for events within a single well, in which mean values per well are used as an assay...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of biomolecular screening 2014-06, Vol.19 (5), p.672-684
1. Verfasser: Haney, Steven A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:When investigators monitor effects on a population of cells following a perturbation, these events rarely occur in a classical normal (or Gaussian) distribution. A normal distribution is, however, explicitly assumed for events within a single well, in which mean values per well are used as an assay metric and, in general, measures of assay robustness, such as the Z’ score and the V factor. Such analysis is not possible for many technologies; however, high-content screening (HCS) measures events of individual cells, which are averaged over the well. These individual cell-level measurements may be analyzed separately. This study quantifies the extent of nonnormality in experimental samples and their effects on determining the EC50 of a test compound and the assay robustness statistics. The results, based on five sets of publicly available data, indicate that the Z’ or V-factor score can be improved by as much as 0.44 more than standard calculations, and the EC50 of a dose–response curve can be lowered by as much as fivefold when nonparametric methods are used, but not all data sets show a significant improvement. The effect on analysis depends in part on whether the greatest shift from normality occurs in the upper or lower range of the dose–response curve.
ISSN:1087-0571
2472-5552
1552-454X
DOI:10.1177/1087057114526432