ArticleEuropean biophysics journal : EBJ2021
Calibrating analytical ultracentrifuges.
Article in European biophysics journal : EBJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Community-building and promotion of technological excellence in molecular biophysics: the ARBRE-MOBIEU network.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) is based on the concept of recording and analyzing macroscopic macromolecular redistribution that results from a centrifugal force acting on the mass of suspended macromolecules in solution. Since AUC rests on first principles, it can provide an absolute measurement of macromolecular mass, sedimentation and diffusion coefficients, and many other quantities, provided that the solvent density and viscosity are known, and provided that the instrument is properly calibrated. Unfortunately, a large benchmark study revealed that many instruments exhibit very significant systematic errors. This includes the magnification of the optical detection system used to determine migration distance, the measurement of sedimentation time, and the measurement of the solution temperature governing viscosity. We have previously developed reference materials, tools, and protocols to detect and correct for systematic measurement errors in the AUC by comparison with independently calibrated standards. This 'external calibration' resulted in greatly improved precision and consistency of parameters across laboratories. Here we detail the steps required for calibration of the different data dimensions in the AUC. We demonstrate the calibration of three different instruments with absorbance and interference optical detection, and use measurements of the sedimentation coefficient of NISTmAb monomer as a test of consistency. Whereas the measured uncorrected sedimentation coefficients span a wide range from 6.22 to 6.61 S, proper calibration resulted in a tenfold reduced standard deviation of sedimentation coefficients. The calibrated relative standard deviation and mean error of 0.2% and 0.07%, respectively, is comparable with statistical errors and side-by-side repeatability in a single instrument.
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.