A challenge in making decisions about data storage and display for DRSC screen data is that the data from different screens can be very different.

For example, a luciferase-based assay (plate-reader screen) would typically result in a numerical read-out (raw data=numbers). Various statistical analysis tools can then be applied to the numbers (processed data=numbers). By contrast, a microscopy-based assay would result in images (raw data=images) that can be processed by eye, or using custom or commercial image analysis software tools (processed data=images, numbers or text). Thus, it is difficult to find one "right" way to display raw or processed data.

One thing that is consistent, however, is that screeners use some set of criteria to define a list of "hits" from their screen, i.e. the positive results from the screen.

Screeners will have different ideas about both the criteria to be applied and where the cut-off for hits should be placed. This may reflect differences in the specific biological process being addressed (for example, for some questions you might expect 'subtle' hits could be relevant whereas for others, only the robust positives might merit follow-up). Alternatively, the placement of the cut-off or criteria for a hit may reflect the application of one or more different methods for analysis.

For all these reasons, standardizing capture and display of screen data, including determination of an appropriate list of screen hits, can be a big challenge.

Our approach has been to let screeners determine the most appropriate way to assign "hits" from the screen and report the data, within the limits a few guidelines and parameters we provide.

A disadvantage is that you will find that some data is organized one way whereas another set of data might be organized a slightly different way, or report a different set of information about the hits.

The advantages of this approach include that what are listed as hits here at the DRSC database are indeed the things that the real experts on a particular screen-the screeners themselves-have defined as hits.

At the top of this page, choose "Query Hits From Published Screens"

Then, enter the example gene symbols: foxo, wg, hh. Click the button to "find hit information."

You should see a table of results and a key.

Most things are marked not screened (NS) or no (not a hit, N). But some are marked S for strong hit, M for medium hit or W for weak hit. What's here will depend on which way the screener reported the data (Y/N or S/M/W).

In some cases, in addition to indicating a hit, the screener also indicates the "direction" of the hit (increased or decreased the assay readout signal) or other information like that.

Here is how to reach that information.

From the table you got to above, click on the screen "funct genom analy Wnt Wingl ..." (from the column headers).

You should see the text "Functional genomic analysis of the Wnt-Wingless Signaling Pathway - List of Reported Hits by Ram Dasgupta" at the top.

Now, scroll down to "select columns to display" and click on "phenotype" (which is how R. Dasgupta named the column that indicates up or down signal---other screeners might use a different term).

Next, scroll further down and click to display using the new selections (might take a while for the new page to load).

You should now see the column "phenotype" that in this case indicates the direction of hits (i.e. increase or decrease in the assay read-out signal).