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

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 ...

SureChEMBL gets a facelift

    Dear SureChEMBL users, Over the past year, we’ve introduced several updates to the SureChEMBL platform, focusing on improving functionality while maintaining a clean and intuitive design. Even small changes can have a big impact on your experience, and our goal remains the same: to provide high-quality patent annotation with a simple, effective way to find the data you need. What’s Changed? After careful consideration, we’ve redesigned the landing page to make your navigation smoother and more intuitive. From top to bottom: - Announcements Section: Stay up to date with the latest news and updates directly from this blog. Never miss any update! - Enhanced Search Bar: The main search bar is still your go-to for text searches, still with three pre-filter radio buttons to quickly narrow your results without hassle. - Improved Query Assistant: Our query assistant has been redesigned and upgraded to help you craft more precise queries. It now includes five operator options: E...

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...

ChEMBL webinar @ School of Chemoinformatics in Latin America

Recently, the ChEMBL team participated in the " School of Chemoinformatics in Latin America " which was kindly organized by José Medina-Franco and Karina Martinez-Mayorga (both at the National Autonomous University of Mexico). The event was very well attended with 1,181 registrants from 79 different countries. 57% of the participants attended from Latin America, 23% from Asia, and around 8% from Africa and Europe, respectively. 52% of the participants were students (undergraduate and graduate students). Distribution by country Distribution by role Participants could learn a bou t the ChEMBL database and UniChem. We covered different topics to answer these questions: • What is ChEMBL and how is it structured ? • Which data does ChEMBL contain ? • How is data extracted from scientic articles ? • How is the data in ChEMBL curated ? • How is drug ...

Here's a nice Christmas gift - ChEMBL 35 is out!

Use your well-deserved Christmas holidays to spend time with your loved ones and explore the new release of ChEMBL 35!            This fresh release comes with a wealth of new data sets and some new data sources as well. Examples include a total of 14 datasets deposited by by the ASAP ( AI-driven Structure-enabled Antiviral Platform) project, a new NTD data se t by Aberystwyth University on anti-schistosome activity, nine new chemical probe data sets, and seven new data sets for the Chemogenomic library of the EUbOPEN project. We also inlcuded a few new fields that do impr ove the provenance and FAIRness of the data we host in ChEMBL:  1) A CONTACT field has been added to the DOCs table which should contain a contact profile of someone willing to be contacted about details of the dataset (ideally an ORCID ID; up to 3 contacts can be provided). 2) In an effort to provide more detailed information about the source of a deposited dat...