My two questions: Is replication of recording $\text{IC}_{50}$ values prior to (primary?) publication less common than performing a reaction several times to determine a more reliable record? Provided the very small quantities used in these tests (vide infra), should a synthetic chemist rather stay skeptic if a newly isolated material is described as highly potent?
In a literature seminar, the story/history of maoecrystal V, a highly congested polycyclic natural product was presented:
(source first part of an overview)
Initially, both the molecular architecture as well as the the $\text{IC}_{50}$ value ($\pu{0.02 ug/mL}$ at a molar mass of $\pu{330 g/mol}$, $\pu{60 nmol}$) in comparison to cis-platin ($\pu{0.99 ug/mL}$ at a similar molar mass of $\pu{300.01 g/mol}$) against cervical HeLa cancer cells reported by Li et al. in Org. Lett. (doi 10.1021/ol0481535) in 2004 triggered the interest of several chemists to synthesize this material.
About a year ago, the Baran group published again efforts towards this compound (doi 10.1021/jacs.6b06623, ACS AuthorChoice / open access), displaying again tremendous efforts in the lab. With larger quantities of the material in hand, however, the initially claimed activity against cancer cells (not only against HeLa) could not be confirmed.
The supporting information of the last paper sheds some light on the frugal scale the $\text{IC}_{50}$ values were recorded:
Synthetic (–)-maoecrystal V (1) was dissolved in 100% DMSO at a concentration of 1 mM. [...] A day after cell seeding, 10 μL of prediluted compound was added to the cells (1:16 dilution).
Which would refer to low umol quantities of the material deployed per test. Still, the question arises why the initially reported activity differs so greatly from the one eventually determined. (Speculation: perhaps fewer groups would have joined the challenge to prepare the material if interested merely in its architecture.)
Addition
For the interaction of Maoecrystal V and other, already known, agents for example facing HeLa cells, page S52 of the SI of the 2016 publication shows this plot:
Note that Actinomycin D is considerably heavier ($\pu{1255 g/mol}$) than Maoecyrstal V ($\pu{330 g/mol}$).