Run a Small Molecule High Throughput Screen at AstraZeneca: UKRI Funding Guide for Access to Robots and Compound Libraries (Deadline 9 September 2026)

If you have a biological target you care about and a nagging suspicion that “some small molecule out there could modulate this,” you already know the problem: suspicion is cheap; screening is not. High throughput screening (HTS) is the scientific equivalent of trying thousands (sometimes millions) of keys in rapid succession—until one actually turns the lock. It’s powerful, it’s messy, and it’s usually far beyond the budget and infrastructure of an ordinary academic lab.

That’s why this UKRI opportunity is such a big deal. It offers funding to run an HTS using AstraZeneca’s screening facilities, meaning you’re not just getting money—you’re getting access to the kind of industrial-grade setup that can chew through assays with ruthless efficiency. Think screening robots, serious automation, and a compound library that isn’t built from whatever you could afford from a catalogue last year.

Even better: this call is described as being open to all targets, and it runs twice per year. That matters because it changes the psychology of applying. You don’t have to treat it like a once-in-a-lifetime moonshot; you can plan like a grown-up scientist: scope, test, refine, apply—then come back stronger if you miss the first round.

This is not a casual application, though. Getting access to a pharma-grade HTS environment is like being invited into a professional kitchen: you can cook something incredible, but you need to show you have a real recipe, not just hunger. The groups that do well here usually have a clear target rationale, a practical assay concept, and a plan for what happens after the “hits” arrive.

Key details at a glance

What this opportunity actually gives you (and why it matters)

The headline is simple—funding to run an HTS—but the value is deeper than the sentence suggests.

First, AstraZeneca’s compound library is not just “a lot of molecules.” In practical terms, a well-curated pharma library tends to include compounds with properties that make downstream drug discovery less of a horror show. You’re not guaranteed a perfect molecule (you never are), but you’re screening in a neighbourhood where “drug-like” is more common than “chemically cute but unusable.”

Second, screening robots and automation are not a luxury; they’re the difference between “we screened 3,000 compounds with heroic manual labour” and “we screened a library at scale with reproducibility, controls, and data integrity.” Automation reduces variability, speeds up iteration, and makes it easier to trust the signal you’re seeing—especially when your assay is finicky, your cells are moody, or your readout is prone to false positives.

Third, there’s an unspoken benefit: speed to evidence. A solid HTS can turn a hypothesis into data fast enough to reshape your entire research programme. With hits in hand, you can:

• build a stronger translational story for later funding,
• recruit collaborators (chemistry, structural biology, disease experts),
• generate tool compounds to probe biology, even if you’re not chasing a drug,
• produce preliminary results that make other competitive grants less of a gamble.

This kind of access is hard to buy, and frankly even harder to build from scratch. That’s why this opportunity is worth serious attention.

Who should apply (eligibility, in human terms)

The listing is brief, so you’ll need to confirm formal eligibility on the UKRI page. But from what’s stated—open to all targets—this is clearly designed to be target-agnostic, which is refreshing. In other words, the programme isn’t telling you what disease area is fashionable this year; it’s telling you: “Bring us a target and an assay that makes sense.”

You’re a strong candidate if you sit in one of these camps:

If you’re an academic lab with a strong biological rationale but limited chemistry infrastructure, HTS can be your bridge. Maybe you’ve identified a protein involved in pathogen survival, or a host pathway that drives inflammation, or a signalling node implicated in cancer resistance. You don’t need a cupboard full of medicinal chemists; you need a credible plan to measure activity and interpret hits.

If you’re working in infectious disease, global health, or neglected areas, an open-target screen is a rare chance to push beyond “we found an interesting mechanism” and into “we found molecules that move the mechanism.” That shift is often what convinces funders—and partners—that your idea can travel.

If you’re a method developer with a novel assay format (reporter assays, phenotypic readouts, target engagement approaches), this can be a proving ground. But here’s the catch: novelty won’t save you if the assay isn’t ready. You should be able to show it works at small scale with reasonable reproducibility before anyone lets robots hammer it.

And if you’re early-career: yes, you should still look. The trick is to present a proposal that reads like it’s driven by a principal investigator who can finish the job—clear decisions, realistic scope, and a plan for follow-up validation.

What usually won’t fly? A target that’s interesting but speculative, paired with an assay that exists only as a sketch on a whiteboard. HTS is expensive time on expensive machines. You need to show you’re bringing something ready enough to deserve that time.

High throughput screening explained without the mystique

HTS is essentially industrial-scale experimentation. You define an assay—say, enzyme inhibition, receptor activation, pathogen growth suppression, or a phenotypic change in cells—then test a compound library against it using automation.

The output is typically a ranked list of “hits,” but hits are not heroes yet. Many are:

• false positives (they interfere with the readout),
• promiscuous binders (they hit everything and mean nothing),
• cytotoxic compounds (they “work” because they kill cells),
• or simply too weak to matter.

A good application doesn’t pretend HTS is magic. It treats HTS as step one in a disciplined process: screen → confirm → triage → validate → understand mechanism.

Insider tips for a winning application (the stuff people learn the hard way)

1) Treat the assay like the product, not the target

Reviewers (and facility teams) care about whether your assay can survive contact with automation. Your target can be brilliant; your assay must be dependable. Show evidence of signal window, reproducibility, and control behaviour. If you can quantify assay quality (for example, with metrics like Z-prime), do it—just explain it plainly.

2) Design your screen around decisions you’ll actually make

An HTS generates data. Data is only useful if it triggers choices. In your application, be explicit: What will you do if you get 5 strong hits? What if you get 200 weak ones? What if you get none? People underestimate how compelling it is to see an applicant who has already planned for “no hits” without panicking.

3) Make your hit-validation plan painfully practical

A screen is not the end; it’s the beginning of a new to-do list. Spell out how you’ll confirm hits (dose–response curves, orthogonal assays, counter-screens, cytotoxicity checks). If your assay is prone to common artefacts, say so and show how you’ll filter them.

4) Don’t confuse “open to all targets” with “anything goes”

Open target doesn’t mean open season for vague proposals. You still need a crisp hypothesis: why this target matters, what modulation would mean biologically, and what success looks like. Think of it like pitching a documentary: you can choose the subject, but you still need a plot.

5) Be honest about risk—then show you’ve contained it

Screens fail for boring reasons: unstable reagents, inconsistent cell health, edge effects on plates, fluorescent interference. A strong application names the biggest technical risk and explains mitigation. That reads as competence, not negativity.

6) Write like you want a collaboration, not a one-off transaction

You’re using AstraZeneca facilities; that’s inherently collaborative. Your tone should signal you’ll be responsive, organised, and realistic about timelines. If there’s a facility team involved, they will not want a chaotic project that needs babysitting.

7) Give reviewers a reason to care beyond your lab

If your screen could produce tool compounds the wider community might use, say that. If the biology matters to an unmet medical need, explain it in one clean paragraph. People fund projects that feel like they’ll matter after the final report is filed away.

Application timeline (working backwards from 9 September 2026)

Assume you want to submit something that looks calm and intentional, not panicked. A realistic plan starts 10–12 weeks before the deadline.

Around mid-June to early July 2026, you should confirm your target choice and lock the assay concept. This is when you gather any preliminary assay performance data you can, because “we think it will work” is not a comforting sentence in an HTS proposal.

By mid-July to early August, focus on the operational pieces: what format is the assay in (biochemical, cellular, phenotypic), what controls you’ll use, what readout technology you need, and what triage steps you’ll run after the primary screen. If you need collaborators for confirmatory assays, line them up now—not the week before submission.

By mid-to-late August, write the application narrative and get feedback from two types of people: one who understands your science deeply, and one who doesn’t. HTS proposals need both credibility and clarity.

In the final 7–10 days before 9 September 2026 (16:00), do your cleanup work: check every requirement on the UKRI page, confirm formatting, and submit early enough that you’re not betting your future on a stable internet connection.

Required materials (what you should prepare before you open the portal)

The UKRI listing will define the official requirements, so treat the below as a practical prep list rather than a definitive checklist.

You should expect to provide a project summary that explains the target, why it matters, and what a successful screen would produce. Write this for an intelligent scientist outside your niche—clear, specific, and jargon-light.

You’ll likely need a technical description of the assay and screening approach. This is where you explain the readout, controls, assay readiness, throughput expectations, and how hits will be defined and confirmed. If you have preliminary assay data, include it in whatever format the application allows.

Prepare a plan for post-screen follow-up, including confirmation, counter-screens, and biological validation. The biggest psychological mistake applicants make is treating HTS as a finish line rather than the start of a longer experiment chain.

You may also need institutional details (who the applicant is, where the work will be led from, any required approvals). If your assay touches pathogens, human material, or other regulated inputs, anticipate compliance questions early so you’re not scrambling at the end.

What makes an application stand out (how reviewers tend to think)

Even when calls don’t publish explicit scoring rubrics, HTS access opportunities tend to reward the same fundamentals.

Assay readiness and feasibility usually dominates. Reviewers want evidence that your assay is stable, measurable, and suitable for automation. If your screen depends on fragile primary cells that vary wildly week-to-week, you’ll need a convincing plan for controlling variability.

Scientific rationale matters next: a good target with a clear mechanistic story and a credible link to disease biology (or fundamental biology) will beat a trendy target described vaguely.

Value of the screen is the third pillar: what will the screen enable that you cannot reasonably do otherwise? If you can screen 2,000 compounds in-house, explain why this programme’s scale, library quality, or automation will change the outcome.

Finally, reviewers look for a believable path after hits. Screens that produce hits with nowhere to go are like fishing without a plan to cook the fish. Show the downstream path: validation, profiling, mechanism, and dissemination.

Common mistakes to avoid (and how to fix them)

Mistake 1: Proposing a screen before the assay is mature

Fix: run a small pilot. Demonstrate signal window, reproducibility, and controls. If something is unstable, say so and explain what you changed.

Mistake 2: Being vague about what counts as a hit

Fix: define hit criteria (even preliminary ones) and describe confirmation steps. “We’ll see what comes out” reads like you haven’t done HTS before.

Mistake 3: Ignoring false positives and assay interference

Fix: include counter-screens and orthogonal assays. If your readout is fluorescence-based, acknowledge fluorescence quenchers and auto-fluorescent compounds exist.

Mistake 4: Overpromising outcomes (especially drug candidates)

Fix: promise what HTS can truly deliver: starting points, tool molecules, mechanistic probes. If you talk about “a new therapy” as the likely outcome, you’ll sound naïve.

Mistake 5: Treating the facility like a vending machine

Fix: write as a partner. Show you understand facility constraints, that you’ll respond quickly to technical feedback, and that you’ve thought through logistics.

Mistake 6: Submitting too late to get internal review

Fix: set an internal deadline at least 72 hours before the official one. HTS proposals benefit massively from a ruthless edit.

Frequently asked questions

Is this funding only for certain disease areas?

The listing states it is open to all targets, which suggests you’re not restricted to a particular disease theme. Still, confirm any eligibility or strategic priorities on the official UKRI page, because programmes sometimes have boundaries that aren’t captured in short summaries.

Do I need an industrial collaborator to apply?

The opportunity already involves AstraZeneca facilities, so collaboration is baked in. Whether you need an additional named collaborator depends on the call rules. Practically, having someone who can support assay development or downstream chemistry can strengthen your plan, but it’s not automatically required.

What if my screen produces no hits?

That’s not automatic failure—if you planned for it. A “no hit” outcome can still be valuable if it answers a meaningful question (for example, the target may not be chemically tractable under the assay conditions) and you have a plan for what you’ll try next (alternate assay format, phenotypic approach, target family pivot).

Can early-career researchers apply?

Often yes in UKRI ecosystems, but you must verify on the official listing. Competitively, early-career applicants do best when they show strong mentorship, solid assay evidence, and a realistic scope.

How competitive is this?

Access to pharma HTS resources is inherently competitive because facility time is finite and demand is high. The good news is that competitiveness here usually favours clarity and feasibility over flashy storytelling. A clean, well-prepared assay plan can beat a grand vision with shaky execution.

When should I start preparing?

If you want a serious application, start at least 10–12 weeks before the deadline. That gives you time to generate assay-readiness data and iterate the story.

Are there two deadlines every year?

The summary says there are two opportunities per year. That typically means two rounds. Check the UKRI listing for the other round date and whether it changes year to year.

Does this fund my entire project?

This opportunity is specifically framed around funding to run the HTS using AstraZeneca facilities. Treat it as targeted support for screening, not a blank cheque for a multi-year programme—unless the full guidance explicitly says otherwise.

How to apply (practical next steps you can do this week)

Start by reading the official UKRI opportunity page carefully—twice. The summary is short, but the full page usually contains the rules that matter: who can apply, what costs are covered, what the application must include, and any constraints on assay types or timelines.

Next, write a one-page “screen logic” document for yourself before you draft the application: target rationale, assay format, controls, what defines a hit, and what you’ll do in the first two weeks after results come back. This one page becomes the spine of your application, and it will expose gaps fast.

Then, sanity-check your assay readiness. If you can produce a small bundle of preliminary data—reproducibility over multiple days, control behaviour, basic signal-to-noise—you’ll strengthen your application more than any amount of elegant prose.

Finally, build your submission plan around the hard deadline: 9 September 2026 at 16:00. Submit early. Not because you’re anxious—because you’re serious.

Apply now and read the full details

Ready to apply? Visit the official opportunity page here: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/small-molecule-high-throughput-screen-using-astrazeneca-facilities/