ArticleAnalytical chemistry2015
Deconvolution method for specific and nonspecific binding of ligand to multiprotein complex by native mass spectrometry.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computed Vibrational Heat Capacities for Gas-Phase Biomolecular Ions.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025Article
- Structural basis of nearest-neighbor cooperativity in the ring-shaped gene regulatory protein TRAP from protein engineering and cryo-EM.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Fragment-based drug discovery campaigns guided by native mass spectrometry.RSC medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- Native and Denaturing MS Protein Deconvolution for Biopharma: Monoclonal Antibodies and Antibody-Drug Conjugates to Polydisperse Membrane Proteins and Beyond.Analytical chemistry · 2019Article
- Methods review: Mass spectrometry analysis of RNAPII complexes.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2019Review
- Native Mass Spectrometry in Fragment-Based Drug Discovery.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In native mass spectrometry, it has been difficult to discriminate between specific bindings of a ligand to a multiprotein complex target from the nonspecific interactions. Here, we present a deconvolution model that consists of two levels of data reduction. At the first level, the apparent association binding constants are extracted from the measured intensities of the target/ligand complexes by varying ligand concentration. At the second level, two functional forms representing the specific and nonspecific binding events are fit to the apparent binding constants obtained from the first level of modeling. Using this approach, we found that a power-law distribution described nonspecific binding of α-amanitin to yeast RNA polymerase II. Moreover, treating the concentration of the multiprotein complex as a fitting parameter reduced the impact of inaccuracies in this experimental measurement on the apparent association constants. This model improves upon current methods for separating specific and nonspecific binding to large, multiprotein complexes in native mass spectrometry, by modeling nonspecific binding with a power-law function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.