ArticleCancer research2024
Modernizing the NCI60 Cell Line Screen for Phenotypic Drug Discovery in the 21st Century.
Article in Cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Preclinical screening models in anticancer drug development: strengths, limitations, and translational challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Profiling the Complexity of Resistance Factors in Cancer Cells Towards Berberine and Its Derivatives.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past three decades, high-throughput phenotypic cancer cell line screens have revealed unanticipated small-molecule activities and illuminated connections between tumor genotypes and anticancer efficacy. Founded in 1984, the National Cancer Institute's "NCI60" screen laid the conceptual groundwork for the contemporary landscape of phenotypic drug discovery. NCI60 first operated as a primary bioactivity screen, but molecular characterization of the NCI60 cell line panel and development of a small-molecule sensitivity pattern recognition algorithm (called "COMPARE") have enabled subsequent studies into drug mechanisms of action and biomarker identification. In this issue of Cancer Research, Kunkel and colleagues report an updated version of the NCI60 screen, dubbed "HTS384" NCI60, that better aligns with current cell proliferation assay standards and has higher throughput. Changes include the use of a 384-well plate format, automated laboratory equipment, 3 days of compound exposure, and a CellTiter-Glo luminescent endpoint. To confirm that data from the HTS384 and classic NCI60 screen are comparable, the authors tested a library of 1,003 anticancer agents using both protocols and applied COMPARE to analyze patterns of cell line sensitivities. More than three dozen groups of targeted therapies showed high comparability between screens. Modernization of NCI60, and closer integration with other large-scale pharmacogenomic screens and molecular feature sets, will help this public screening service remain pertinent for cancer drug discovery efforts for years to come. See related article by Kunkel et al., p. 2403.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39086314What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.