ArticlePloS one2018
A radial calibration window for analytical ultracentrifugation.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Best Practices for Aggregate Quantitation of Antibody Therapeutics by Sedimentation Velocity Analytical Ultracentrifugation.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2022Review
- Calibrating analytical ultracentrifuges.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2021Article
- A calibration disk for the correction of radial errors from chromatic aberration and rotor stretch in the Optima AUC™ analytical ultracentrifuge.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2020Article
- Analytical Ultracentrifugation (AUC): An Overview of the Application of Fluorescence and Absorbance AUC to the Study of Biological Macromolecules.Current protocols in molecular biology · 2020Article
- Quantitative Analysis of Protein Self-Association by Sedimentation Velocity.Current protocols in protein science · 2020Article
- Resuspending samples in analytical ultracentrifugation.Analytical biochemistry · 2020Article
- Efficient data acquisition with three-channel centerpieces in sedimentation velocity.Analytical biochemistry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) is a first-principles based method for studying macromolecules and particles in solution by monitoring the evolution of their radial concentration distribution as a function of time in the presence of a high centrifugal field. In sedimentation velocity experiments, hydrodynamic properties relating to size, shape, density, and solvation of particles can be measured, at a high hydrodynamic resolution, on polydisperse samples. In a recent multilaboratory benchmark study including data from commercial analytical ultracentrifuges in 67 laboratories, the calibration accuracy of the radial dimension was found to be one of the dominant factors limiting the accuracy of AUC. In the present work, we develop an artifact consisting of an accurately calibrated reflective pattern lithographically deposited onto an AUC window. It serves as a reticle when scanned in AUC control experiments for absolute calibration of radial magnification. After analysis of the pitch between landmarks in scans using different optical systems, we estimate that the residual uncertainty in radial magnification after external calibration with the radial scale artifact is ≈0.2 %, of similar magnitude to other important contributions after external calibration such as the uncertainty in temperature and time. The previous multilaboratory study had found many instruments with errors in radial measurements of 1 % to 2 %, and a few instruments with errors in excess of 15 %, meaning that the use of the artifact developed here could reduce errors by 5-to 10-fold or more. Adoption of external radial calibration is thus an important factor for assuring accuracy in studies related to molecular hydrodynamics and particle size measurements by AUC.
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.