Unlocking the Potential of Cell-Based Assays in Modern Scientific Research

Cell-based assays play an increasingly important role in contemporary drug discovery. These assays enable researchers to evaluate the effects of chemical compounds, genetic constructs, or biological agents in living cells, under physiologically relevant environments. Cell-based assays can be applied in contexts such as early target identification, pathway elucidation, toxicity profiling and mechanistic studies. (Swinney & Anthony, 2011.)

As therapeutic targets, such as membrane-bound receptors, ion channels, and intracellular protein–protein interactions, become more complex, assay systems must adapt in parallel. This need has led to innovations in both assay design and in the integration of cell-based methods with high-throughput screening platforms. 

Cell-based assays can be categorized according to the type of detection employed (e.g., fluorescence, luminescence, impedance), the format of the assay (2D monolayers vs. 3D cultures), or the biological endpoint of interest (e.g., proliferation, signalling, cytotoxicity). A wide range of assay platforms are available, each tailored to specific targets, pathways, and screening needs:

• Reporter gene assays: measure transcriptional activation using luciferase or GFP reporters.
• Calcium flux and electrophysiology assays: provide functional readouts for ion channels and GPCRs (Dunlop et al., 2008).
• Viability and cytotoxicity assays: use reagents such as resazurin, ATP detection, or live/dead imaging to assess cell health.
• High-content imaging (HCI/HCS): captures detailed morphological and phenotypic changes through automated microscopy (Sirenko et al., 2015).
• Oocyte-based binding assays (e.g., Vipergen’s cBTE. https://www.vipergen.com/cellular-binder-trap-enrichment/): enable DNA-tagged ligands to interact with live targets in a physiological relevant context, offering an alternative to traditional in vitro assays

Each of these methods presents specific strengths and limitations depending on the scientific question and technical setup. The table below summarizes key advantages and considerations for commonly used assay types:

Cell-based assays operate by evaluating molecular interactions or biological responses in the context of intact, living cells. The experimental system typically involves expressing the target protein of interest in a suitable cell type and then exposing those cells to test compounds. In some cases, the focus is on detecting compound binding under conditions that preserve physiological features such as membrane context, protein conformation, and cofactor availability.

• 3D cancer spheroid assays have demonstrated the ability to detect subtle cytostatic effects and morphological alterations not observable in traditional monolayer cultures, thus improving relevance for oncology models [Sirenko et al., 2015].
• High-content screening (HCS) platforms have enabled the discovery of pathway-selective modulators in complex systems such as neurodegenerative disease models, where multiparametric image analysis reveals compound-specific phenotypes beyond cell viability.

Oocyte-based binding assays, including Vipergen’s cellular Binder Trap Enrichment (cBTE) https://www.vipergen.com/cellular-binder-trap-enrichment/ screening, allow DNA-encoded libraries to be screened directly in live Xenopus laevis oocytes, a well-established system for heterologous protein expression and electrophysiological measurements (Stühmer, 1992). These cells express proteins in a native-like environment, enabling detection of binding events for structurally complex targets that are often difficult to purify or assay using classical methods.

While traditional assays often relied on isolated enzymes or purified receptors in artificial systems, modern cell-based platforms increasingly assess molecular interactions in a biologically relevant context. The use of intact, live cells — including oocyte-based systems — allows researchers to capture aspects of protein folding, subcellular localization, and conformational dynamics that are essential for meaningful interaction profiling.

This is particularly important in the study of challenging targets such as protein–protein interactions and molecular glues, where binding interfaces may only be preserved in native-like environments. Screening directly in living cells enables the identification of small molecules that stabilize or disrupt multiprotein complexes — an area of growing importance in next-generation drug discovery.

Recent innovations in cell-based screening include:

• Miniaturized organoid systems for modelling tissue-specific drug responses in oncology and regenerative medicine
• Machine learning–enhanced high-content imaging, which enables phenotypic clustering and multiparametric analysis of cellular responses (Caicedo et al., 2017)
• Label-free detection technologies, such as impedance-based readouts and thermal shift assays
• Cell-based binding assays in intact membrane environments, including oocyte-based screening platforms that preserve lipid bilayers and protein folding — enabling detection of ligand interactions with GPCRs, ion channels, and protein–protein interfaces
• Assays targeting molecular glues and induced proximity, reflecting the growing interest in stabilizers of protein–protein interactions and targeted degradation mechanisms (Schapira et al., 2019)

These innovations illustrate a broader shift: from purely functional or biochemical readouts to mechanism-informed screening in biologically relevant systems.

Cell-based assays have firmly established themselves as indispensable tools in modern scientific research and drug discovery by enabling the assessment of molecular interactions in biologically relevant systems

Advances in assay formats — from 3D cultures and high-content imaging to oocyte-based binding platforms — have significantly enhanced the physiological fidelity and predictive power of these systems. This makes them especially valuable for examining challenging targets like GPCRs, ion channels, and protein–protein interactions.

As therapeutic discovery increasingly focuses on difficult and dynamic targets, the role of robust, mechanism-informed, and physiologically relevant screening platforms will only grow.

Cellular Binder Trap Enrichment (cBTE) performs the DEL screen inside living cells, so binders are identified under physiologically relevant conditions without the need for purified protein. the workflow relies on the so-called YoctoReactor libraries https://www.vipergen.com/yoctoreactor-yr-libraries/—hundreds of millions of well-defined, DNA-tagged compounds synthesised in a single tube—reducing false positives and making hit resynthesis manageable.  

For projects that must move quickly from simple binding detection to functional assays, these technologies supply chemically verified starting points already selected in a relevant cellular or solution-based context. https://www.vipergen.com/services/

1. Swinney, D. C., & Anthony, J. (2011). How were new medicines discovered? Nat Rev Drug Discov, 10(7), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3480
2. Sirenko, O., Mitlo, T., Hesley, J., Luke, S., Owens, W., & Cromwell, E. F. (2015). High-content assays for characterizing the viability and morphology of 3D cancer spheroid cultures. Assay Drug Dev Technol, 13(7), 402–414. https://doi.org/10.1089/adt.2015.655
3. Moffat, J. G., Vincent, F., Lee, J. A., Eder, J., & Prunotto, M. (2017). Opportunities and challenges in phenotypic drug discovery: An industry perspective. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 16(8), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.111
4. Dunlop, J., Bowlby, M., Peri, R., Vasilyev, D., & Arias, R. (2008). High-throughput electrophysiology: An emerging paradigm for ion-channel screening and physiology. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 7(4), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2552
5. Stühmer, W. (1992). Electrophysiological recording from Xenopus oocytes. Methods in Enzymology, 207, 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(92)07026-
6. Zhang, J.H., Chung, T.D., & Oldenburg, K.R. (1999). A Simple Statistical Parameter for Use in Evaluation and Validation of High Throughput Screening Assays. J Biomol Screen, 4(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/108705719900400206
7. Xu, J. J., Henstock, P. V., Dunn, M. C., Smith, A. R., Chabot, J. R., & de Graaf, D. (2008). Cellular imaging predictions of clinical drug-induced liver injury. Toxicological Sciences, 105(1), 97–105.
   DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfn109
8. Caicedo, J.C., et al. (2017). Data-analysis strategies for image-based cell profiling. Nature Methods, 14, 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4397
9. Schapira, M., et al. (2019). Targeted protein degradation: expanding the toolbox. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 18(12), 949–963. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-019-0047-y