Table 2.

Summary and results of AmpG ultra-HTS campaign

Step	Screen Type	Readout	Target	Number of Compounds Tested	Selection Criteria	Number of Selected Compounds (Hit Rate)	Z′	S/B
1a	Primary screen	Absorbance	AmpG	646,275	11.10%a	2663 (0.41%)	0.87±0.05	2.22±0.15
2a	Confirmation screen	Absorbance	AmpG	2,660	11.10%b	851 (31.99%)	0.86±0.02	4.33±0.46
2b	Counterscreen screen	Absorbance	AmpG No Cefoxitin	2,660	12.70%c	864 (32.48%)	0.88±0.03	4.53±0.32
3a	Dose-response screen	Absorbance	AmpG	110	IC50 < 10uM	1 (0.09%)	0.84±0.02	4.36±0.31
3b	Dose-response counterscreen	Absorbance	AmpG No Cefoxitin	110	IC50 < 10uM	1 (0.09%)	0.84±0.02	3.99±0.31
4a	PampC Lux dose response	Luciferase	AmpG	110	Chemistd	8 (7.27%)	0.59±0.17	112.75±9.23
4b	PampC Lux dose response	Absorbance	AmpG	110	Chemist	0 (0.00%)	0.79±0.04	2.88±0.23

^aThe primary screen hit cutoff was calculated using the interval-based cutoff.

^bThe primary hit cutoff was used.

^cThe counterscreen hit cutoff was calculated by using the average + three standard deviations of the DMSO sample field plates, n=7.

^dDue to the novelty of this target, compounds with any observable activity in either the primary assay, the Lux assay, but not in the absorbance assay, were of interest for follow-up.