ArticleEuropean biophysics journal : EBJ2021
A multi-laboratory benchmark study of isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) using Ca
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrative Computational Chemistry Approaches in Modern Drug Discovery: Advances in Docking, Pharmacophore Modeling, Molecular Dynamics, and Virtual Screening.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Reaction of KHP with excess NaOH or TRIS as standard reactions for calibration of titration calorimeters from 0 to 60 °C.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2024Article
- A "Pincer" Type of Acridine-Triazole Fluorescent Dye for Iodine Detection by Both 'Naked-Eye' Colorimetric and Fluorometric Modes.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Characterization of ATG8-Family Interactors by Isothermal Titration Calorimetry.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- 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
17 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A small-scale ITC benchmarking study was performed involving 9 biophysics laboratories/facilities, to evaluate inter-laboratory and intra-laboratory basal levels of uncertainty. Our prime goal was to assess a number of important factors that can influence both the data gathered by this technique and the thermodynamic parameter values derived therefrom. In its first part, the study involved 5 laboratories and 13 different instruments, working with centrally prepared samples and the same experimental protocol. The second part involved 4 additional laboratories and 6 more instruments, where the users prepared their own samples according to provided instructions and did the experiments following the same protocol as in the first part. The study design comprised: (1) selecting a minimal set of laboratories; (2) providing very stable samples; (3) providing samples not requiring preparation or manipulation; and (4) providing a well-defined and detailed experimental protocol. Thus, we were able to assess: (i) the variability due to instrument and data analysis performed by each user on centrally prepared samples; (ii) the comparability of data retrieved when using 4 different software packages to analyze the same data, besides the data analysis carried out by the different users on their own experimental results; and (iii) the variability due to local sample preparation (second part of the study). Individual values, as well as averages and standard deviations for the binding parameters for EDTA-cation interaction, were used as metrics for comparing the equilibrium association constant (logK), enthalpy of interaction (ΔH), and the so-called "stoichiometry" (n), a concentration-correction factor.
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.