Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33398460›Full record

ArticleEuropean biophysics journal : EBJ2021

Calibrating analytical ultracentrifuges.

Huaying Zhao, Ai Nguyen, Samuel C To, Peter Schuck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Huaying ZhaoDynamics of Macromolecular Assembly Section, Laboratory of Cellular Imaging and Macromolecular Biophysics, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Ai NguyenDynamics of Macromolecular Assembly Section, Laboratory of Cellular Imaging and Macromolecular Biophysics, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Samuel C ToDynamics of Macromolecular Assembly Section, Laboratory of Cellular Imaging and Macromolecular Biophysics, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Peter SchuckDynamics of Macromolecular Assembly Section, Laboratory of Cellular Imaging and Macromolecular Biophysics, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. schuckp@mail.nih.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8859-6966

Funding

Dynamics of Protein Assemblies by Analytical UltracentrifugationZIAEB000051 · NIBIB · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING · PI SCHUCK, PETER · 2009 to 2025
$7.9M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA EB000051NIBIB NIH HHS ZIA EB000051-14 LCIM
6 · The paper itself

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

UltracentrifugationCalibrationMacromolecular SubstancesSolventsViscosityMacromolecular SubstancesSolventsAnalytical ultracentrifugationInstrument calibrationSedimentation velocityStokes radius

Identifiers

PMID33398460
PMCPMC8192337

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.