Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27586327›Full record

ArticleMethods in enzymology2016

Cell-Binding Assays for Determining the Affinity of Protein-Protein Interactions: Technologies and Considerations.

S A Hunter, J R Cochran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in enzymology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Binding affinity between coronavirus spike protein and human ACE2 receptor.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  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

2 authors.

S A HunterStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
J R CochranStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. Electronic address: jennifer.cochran@stanford.edu.

Funding

Leveraging innovative technologies in basic and clinical cancer researchT32CA009302 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LAURA D ATTARDI, Aaron M Newman · 1985 to 2026
$19.1M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009302
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining the equilibrium-binding affinity (Kd) of two interacting proteins is essential not only for the biochemical study of protein signaling and function but also for the engineering of improved protein and enzyme variants. One common technique for measuring protein-binding affinities uses flow cytometry to analyze ligand binding to proteins presented on the surface of a cell. However, cell-binding assays require specific considerations to accurately quantify the binding affinity of a protein-protein interaction. Here we will cover the basic assumptions in designing a cell-based binding assay, including the relevant equations and theory behind determining binding affinities. Further, two major considerations in measuring binding affinities-time to equilibrium and ligand depletion-will be discussed. As these conditions have the potential to greatly alter the Kd, methods through which to avoid or minimize them will be provided. We then outline detailed protocols for performing direct- and competitive-binding assays against proteins displayed on the surface of yeast or mammalian cells that can be used to derive accurate Kd values. Finally, a comparison of cell-based binding assays to other types of binding assays will be presented.

Indexed as

Protein BindingProtein Interaction MapsAnimalsBinding, CompetitiveFlow CytometryHumansKineticsLigandsMammalsProteinsYeastsLigandsProteinsCell-binding assayEquilibriumK(d)KinExALigand depletionSPRYeast surface display

Identifiers

PMID27586327
PMCPMC6067677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.