Table 3. Published comparisons of acoustic and tip-based dispensing.

Dataset/target	Number of molecules	Comments	Reference
12 point IC50 values for unspecified dataset	∼40	Compounds more active when using acoustic dispensing. Correlation in data is poor with many compounds showing >10 fold shift in potency depending on dispensing method. No analysis of molecule properties.	[2]
20 point assay IC50 values for 5-HT2b agonists	4	3 out of 4 compounds show 5-7 fold increased activity upon acoustic dispensing. No correlation described or analysis of molecule properties.	[21]
20 point assay EC50 values for 5-HT2b antagonists	4	3 out of 4 compounds show lower activity upon acoustic dispensing. No correlation described or analysis of molecule properties.	[21]
10 point IC50 curves–No target specified	1090	Data appears randomly scattered. 24% had IC50 values >3 fold weaker using tip-based dispensing. 8% produced no value using tip-based dispensing. No analysis of molecule properties.	[1]
Inhibition of tyrosine kinases	10,000	Inhibition of reaction was measured at one concentration (10 µM). False positives from acoustic transfer (as measured by subsequent IC50 analyses) accounted for 19% of hits. False hits from tip-based transfers accounted for 55% of all hits. 60 more compounds were identified as active with acoustic transfer. No analysis of molecule properties.	[12]