Skip to main content

Costs of Assays



I'm giving some talks over the summer, and am getting bored with some of the stuff I have, so I'm thinking of some new stuff to put in to add a bit of variety and interest. I'm getting interested in thinking about assay level attrition, and trying to put more of a taxonomy and inter-relationship mapping between assays used in drug discovery. As part of this, there is a cost component for each type of assay, going from very cheap to really really expensive. Here's a little picture from the presentation I've put together - I used educated guesses for the costs, so please, please critique them !


So, what do people think of the guesstimates of costs per compound per assay point on the picture above. I know it is really variable, there are startup costs to set something up, etc, etc. But what do you think about the orders of magnitude, are they about right? One of the key features of the numbers I've put there, are that there are big transitions at the switch between in silico and in vitro, and then on entering clinical trials.

The picture at the top of this post (about unicorns) is from the very funny http://www.depressedcopywriter.com/.

Comments

Bin said…
Hi, John, this picture is very interesting. Do you know how they got this data? It would be great to have another one illustrating the time line of each assay.
Lo Sauer said…
I applaud you for the daring attempt, but it is a difficult subject and biased (except for the unicorns which of course do exist ;) ). 'In silico' too requires scientist writing the software in the first place, and the models need to be verified and improved in co-existence with empirical experiments - thus raising costs.

One could easily envision 'selling' in-silico results based on obsolete software-models (I've seen such papers), yet performing an kinase assay past its expiration date is often unthinkable.

The cost of clinical trials are incredibly varied depending on the type of drug and drug target in question, whereas those of in-silico are typically not.

In-silico models are of course primarily optmized to computing only what is needed, and constrained by the underlying model, whereas empirical data generation is limited by other constraints, and often much more data is generated than ever published (especially when we are talking about corporate science)
jpo said…
Yes, of course, each problem is different, and the costs can be very low, or very high. Across each level of the assay hierarchy there will be cheaper assays and more expensive ones, but I made an estimate.

The costs of development are not factored in to my numbers either, since it is difficult to know when to stop..... A scientist writes the software, and they have a salary that pays them during this time, but do you count the cost of their education, etc.

It's a difficult problem!
Dear John,
I am interesting in the source of this prices. Does any reference exist supporting them?
Thank's!
jpo said…
Hi Vladmir.

The costs are just my personal estimates for this. So they are just that estimates. There could be some better ways of getting estimates - for example going to a CRO and asking for quotes for a series of defined and typical assays. The issue there is that there are many factors that would complicate things - they would have a profit margin to include, and also want to recoup cost of capital, etc. Secondly, they would not be interested in running a single biochemical assay for a few dollars, and then there would be a 'volume discount' to handle.

Another interesting number, alongside timeline as suggest by Bin, would be number of assays run per year, my guess it would be many billions for the virtual screening end of the spectrum through to maybe a few thousand at the clinical trials end.

Popular posts from this blog

Improvements in SureChEMBL's chemistry search and adoption of RDKit

    Dear SureChEMBL users, If you frequently rely on our "chemistry search" feature, today brings great news! We’ve recently implemented a major update that makes your search experience faster than ever. What's New? Last week, we upgraded our structure search engine by aligning it with the core code base used in ChEMBL . This update allows SureChEMBL to leverage our FPSim2 Python package , returning results in approximately one second. The similarity search relies on 256-bit RDKit -calculated ECFP4 fingerprints, and a single instance requires approximately 1 GB of RAM to run. SureChEMBL’s FPSim2 file is not currently available for download, but we are considering generating it periodicaly and have created it once for you to try in Google Colab ! For substructure searches, we now also use an RDKit -based solution via SubstructLibrary , which returns results several times faster than our previous implementation. Additionally, structure search results are now sorted by

Improved querying for SureChEMBL

    Dear SureChEMBL users, Earlier this year we ran a survey to identify what you, the users, would like to see next in SureChEMBL. Thank you for offering your feedback! This gave us the opportunity to have some interesting discussions both internally and externally. While we can't publicly reveal precisely our plans for the coming months (everything will be delivered at the right time), we can at least say that improving the compound structure extraction quality is a priority. Unfortunately, the change won't happen overnight as reprocessing 167 millions patents takes a while. However, the good news is that the new generation of optical chemical structure recognition shows good performance, even for patent images! We hope we can share our results with you soon. So in the meantime, what are we doing? You may have noticed a few changes on the SureChEMBL main page. No more "Beta" flag since we consider the system to be stable enough (it does not mean that you will never

ChEMBL brings drug bioactivity data to the Protein Data Bank in Europe

In the quest to develop new drugs, understanding the 3D structure of molecules is crucial. Resources like the Protein Data Bank in Europe (PDBe) and the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) provide these 3D blueprints for many biological molecules. However, researchers also need to know how these molecules interact with their biological target – their bioactivity. ChEMBL is a treasure trove of bioactivity data for countless drug-like molecules. It tells us how strongly a molecule binds to a target, how it affects a biological process, and even how it might be metabolized. But here's the catch: while ChEMBL provides extensive information on a molecule's activity and cross references to other data sources, it doesn't always tell us if a 3D structure is available for a specific drug-target complex. This can be a roadblock for researchers who need that structural information to design effective drugs. Therefore, connecting ChEMBL data with resources like PDBe and CSD is essen

ChEMBL 34 is out!

We are delighted to announce the release of ChEMBL 34, which includes a full update to drug and clinical candidate drug data. This version of the database, prepared on 28/03/2024 contains:         2,431,025 compounds (of which 2,409,270 have mol files)         3,106,257 compound records (non-unique compounds)         20,772,701 activities         1,644,390 assays         15,598 targets         89,892 documents Data can be downloaded from the ChEMBL FTP site:  https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/chembl/ChEMBLdb/releases/chembl_34/ Please see ChEMBL_34 release notes for full details of all changes in this release:  https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/chembl/ChEMBLdb/releases/chembl_34/chembl_34_release_notes.txt New Data Sources European Medicines Agency (src_id = 66): European Medicines Agency's data correspond to EMA drugs prior to 20 January 2023 (excluding vaccines). 71 out of the 882 newly added EMA drugs are only authorised by EMA, rather than from other regulatory bodies e.g.

ChEMBL 26 Released

We are pleased to announce the release of ChEMBL_26 This version of the database, prepared on 10/01/2020 contains: 2,425,876 compound records 1,950,765 compounds (of which 1,940,733 have mol files) 15,996,368 activities 1,221,311 assays 13,377 targets 76,076 documents You can query the ChEMBL 26 data online via the ChEMBL Interface and you can also download the data from the ChEMBL FTP site . Please see ChEMBL_26 release notes for full details of all changes in this release. Changes since the last release: * Deposited Data Sets: CO-ADD antimicrobial screening data: Two new data sets have been included from the Community for Open Access Drug Discovery (CO-ADD). These data sets are screening of the NIH NCI Natural Product Set III in the CO-ADD assays (src_id = 40, Document ChEMBL_ID = CHEMBL4296183, DOI = 10.6019/CHEMBL4296183) and screening of the NIH NCI Diversity Set V in the CO-ADD assays (src_id = 40, Document ChEMBL_ID = CHEMBL4296182, DOI = 10.601