Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17521163›Full record

ArticleBiomacromolecules2007

Using prior knowledge in the determination of macromolecular size-distributions by analytical ultracentrifugation.

Patrick H Brown, Andrea Balbo, Peter Schuck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomacromolecules, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Raynals, an online tool for the analysis of dynamic light scattering.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2023
    Article
  5. An automated interface for sedimentation velocity analysis in SEDFIT.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Patrick H BrownProtein Biophysics Resource, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Andrea Balbo
Peter Schuck

Funding

Dynamics of Protein Assemblies by Analytical UltracentrifugationZ01EB000051 · NIBIB · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING · PI SCHUCK, PETER · 2007 to 2008
$111k
BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF MACROMOLECULESZ01OD010485 · OD · OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, NIH · PI SCHUCK, PETER · 1998 to 2006
–
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 OD010485
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analytical ultracentrifugation has reemerged as a widely used tool for the study of ensembles of biological macromolecules to understand, for example, their size-distribution and interactions in free solution. Such information can be obtained from the mathematical analysis of the concentration and signal gradients across the solution column and their evolution in time generated as a result of the gravitational force. In sedimentation velocity analytical ultracentrifugation, this analysis is frequently conducted using high resolution, diffusion-deconvoluted sedimentation coefficient distributions. They are based on Fredholm integral equations, which are ill-posed unless stabilized by regularization. In many fields, maximum entropy and Tikhonov-Phillips regularization are well-established and powerful approaches that calculate the most parsimonious distribution consistent with the data and prior knowledge, in accordance with Occam's razor. In the implementations available in analytical ultracentrifugation, to date, the basic assumption implied is that all sedimentation coefficients are equally likely and that the information retrieved should be condensed to the least amount possible. Frequently, however, more detailed distributions would be warranted by specific detailed prior knowledge on the macromolecular ensemble under study, such as the expectation of the sample to be monodisperse or paucidisperse or the expectation for the migration to establish a bimodal sedimentation pattern based on Gilbert-Jenkins' theory for the migration of chemically reacting systems. So far, such prior knowledge has remained largely unused in the calculation of the sedimentation coefficient or molecular weight distributions or was only applied as constraints. In the present paper, we examine how prior expectations can be built directly into the computational data analysis, conservatively in a way that honors the complete information of the experimental data, whether or not consistent with the prior expectation. Consistent with analogous results in other fields, we find that the use of available prior knowledge can have a dramatic effect on the resulting molecular weight, sedimentation coefficient, and size-and-shape distributions and can significantly increase both their sensitivity and their resolution. Further, the use of multiple alternative prior information allows us to probe the range of possible interpretations consistent with the data.

Indexed as

Molecular ConformationAnimalsChemistryHumansMacromolecular SubstancesModels, StatisticalModels, TheoreticalParticle SizeProtein ConformationProteinsResearch DesignUltracentrifugationMacromolecular SubstancesProteins

Identifiers

PMID17521163
PMCPMC1994561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.