Our website does not fully support your browser.

We've detected that you are using an older version of Internet Explorer. Your commerce experience may be limited. Please update your browser to Internet Explorer 11 or above.

Promega's Cookie Policy

We use cookies and similar technologies to make our website work, run analytics, improve our website, and show you personalized content and advertising. Some of these cookies are essential for our website to work. For others, we won’t set them unless you accept them. To find out more about cookies and how to manage cookies, read our Cookie Policy.

Compound Interference of CellTiter-Glo® vs PE ATPlite™ 1Step

Part # PS143


Brad Hook and Trista Schagat
Promega Corporation, 2800 Woods Hollow Road, Madison, WI USA 53711

Reducing the number of false positives in a high-throughput screen is a key goal for any researcher trying to minimize downstream efforts. Luciferase-based systems are used widely as reporters for drug screens; however, compounds in a library can inhibit luciferase, resulting in false positives. Ultra-Glo™ rLuciferase, an evolved luciferase from the firefly, Photuris pennsylvanica, is less sensitive to compound inhibition than wild-type firefly luciferase. In this study, we directly compare the abilities of the Promega CellTiter-Glo® Luminescent Cell Viability Assay, an Ultra-Glo™ rLuciferase-based luminescent ATP detection system, and the Perkin Elmer ATPlite™ 1step assay to resist common commercial luciferase inhibitors. The CellTiter-Glo® Assay has greater than 80% activity for 5 out of the 7 compounds at an inhibitor concentration of 10μM; whereas, ATPlite™ 1step has 80% activity for only 1 out of 7 compounds at the same inhibitor concentrations.

Printed in USA.