Baird,
Sorry for not replying sooner, but I've been out for two weeks.
Regarding "pool and split" vs. "parallel":
They're both good. The bottom line here, to me, is the testing of single compounds. In many combichem companies, one actually makes mixtures of compounds and tests the mixtures. This has advantages (fewer tests to run, for example), but also has serious disadvantages we need not go into.
In "pool and split", you can, theoretically, make more compounds because you are running fewer reactions. You needn't do it on beads -- there is a company in San Diego called Irori that does it in little micro-reactors. The key is to have soe way to de-convolute.
In "parallel", you just have to keep track of what is in what reaction vial. The downside is more reaction vials to make the same number of structures.
IMHO, the "pool and split" approach is going to prove to be more important for finding and verifying lead structures. The "parallel" approach, I think, will be more important for optimizing that lead structure into a drug. Since few initial leads turn out to be drugs, and you can't optimize without a lead, I think both are going to be vital to the future of combichem. I'll verify which companies do which and get back to you. |
