| HOME >> BIOLOGY >> TECHNOLOGY |
Assay performance assessments based on a signal-to-noise (S:N) method that does not take into account the standard deviation of both control and treated samples will be prone to error. For example, a signal-to-noise metric still cited in screening literature for assessment of in vitro assays involves dividing the magnitude of assay response by the standard deviation of the control (untreated) sample:
We used this S:N calculation to assess assay performance of eight replicate plates imaged and analyzed using the IN Cell Analyzer 1000. The S:N values obtained using this method varied greatly (Figure 2, S:N, method A).
By contrast, S:N values were much more consistent between replicate plates (Figure 2, method B) when we used an alternative method for S:N calculation that takes into account variation of both the control and responding sample populations:
During assay optimization, S:N (method B) can be a more sensitive indicator of assay performance than the Z factor. This is demonstrated by the data shown in Figure 3, where Z factor and S:N values of the same assay performance data are compared.
Since both S:N (method B) and Z factor are based on the same
variables, there is a defined relationship between the two
metrics, assuming for simplicity that standard deviation of the
positive
'"/>
Source: