Cheburator software for automatically calculating drug inhibitory concentrations from in vitroscreening assays

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 9, 2014, Pages

  Nevozhay, Dmitry ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b INSTITUTE OF IMMUNOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY   (Poland)

^c FAR EASTERN FEDERAL UNIVERSITY   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; APPLICATION SERVICE PROVIDER; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CALCULATION; CHEBURATOR; CLIENT SERVER APPLICATION; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA PROCESSING; DRUG SCREENING; IC50; IN VITRO STUDY; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TUMOR CELL LINE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ALGORITHMS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CELL LINE, TUMOR; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; HUMANS; INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION 50; NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84906998215     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106186     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Shoemaker RH (2006) The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen. Nat Rev Cancer 6:813-823.
2. Ranke J (2006) Fitting dose-response curves from bioassays and toxicity testing. R News 3:7-12. Available: http://www.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews-2006-3.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2014.
3. Skehan P, Storeng R, Scudiero D, Monks A, McMahon J, et al. (1990) New colorimetric cytotoxicity assay for anticancer-drug screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1107-1112.
4. Mosmann T (1983) Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 65:55-63.
5. Sebaugh JL (2011) Guidelines for accurate EC50/IC50 estimation. Pharm Stat 10:128-134.
6. Neubig RR, Spedding M, Kenakin T, Christopoulos A (2003) International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. XXXVIII. Update on terms and symbols in quantitative pharmacology. Pharmacol Rev 55:597-606.
7. Reed L, Muench H (1938) A simple method of estimating fifty percent endpoints. Am J Hyg 27:493.
8. Meddings JB, Scott RB, Fick GH (1989) Analysis and comparison of sigmoidal curves: application to dose-response data. Am J Physiol 257:G982-G989.
9. Parellada J, Guinea M (1995) Flavonoid inhibitors of trypsin and leucine aminopeptidase: a proposed mathematical model for IC50 estimation. J Nat Prod 58:823-829.
10. Bindslev N (2008) Drug-Acceptor Interactions: Modeling theoretical tools to test and evaluate experimental equilibrium effects. Coaction Publishing.
11. Carpenter J, Bithell J (2000) Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Stat Med 19:1141-1164.
12. Kenakin T (1993) Pharmacologic analysis of drug-receptor interaction. New York: Raven Press.
13. Le CT, Grambsch PM, Liu A (2005) Estimation of cancer drug potencies and relative potencies from in vitro data. J Biopharm Stat 15:903-912.
14. Budzynska R, Nevozhay D, Kanska U, Jagiello M, Opolski A, et al. (2007) Antitumor activity of mannan-methotrexate conjugate in vitro and in vivo. Oncol Res 16:415-421.
15. Goszczynski T, Nevozhay D, Wietrzyk J, Omar MS, Boratynski J (2013) The antileukemic activity of modified fibrinogen-methotrexate conjugate. Biochim Biophys Acta 1830:2526-2530.
16. Jagiello M, Kanska U, Nevozhay D, Boratynski J (2010) Synthesis and biological activity of raltitrexed-carrier conjugates. Acta Biochim Pol 57:83-87.
17. Nevozhay D, Budzynska R, Jagiello M, Kanska U, Omar MS, et al. (2006) The effect of the substitution level of some dextran-methotrexate conjugates on their antitumor activity in experimental cancer models. Anticancer Res 26:2179-2186.
18. Nevozhay D, Budzynska R, Kanska U, Jagiello M, Omar MS, et al. (2006) Antitumor properties and toxicity of dextran-methotrexate conjugates are dependent on the molecular weight of the carrier. Anticancer Res 26:1135-1143.