ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2022
Comparison of methods for quantitative biomolecular interaction analysis.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying Protein Homodimer Affinities and the Effect of Molecular Glues and Interface Residues Using Native Mass Spectrometry.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2026Article
- An Efficient Method for Vault Nanoparticle Conjugation with Finely Adjustable Amounts of Antibodies and Small Molecules.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Effects of Chemical Fixatives on Kinetic Measurements of Biomolecular Interaction on Cell Membrane.The Journal of membrane biology · 2024Article
- (R)evolution of the Standard Addition Procedure for Immunoassays.Biosensors · 2023Article
- Tools to compare antibody gold nanoparticle conjugates for a small molecule immunoassay.Mikrochimica acta · 2023Article
- A novel shark single-domain antibody targeting OGT as a tool for detection and intracellular localization.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to perform good kinetic experiments, not only the experimental conditions have to be optimized, but the evaluation procedure as well. The focus of this work is the in-depth comparison of different approaches and algorithms to determine kinetic rate constants for biomolecular interaction analysis (BIA). The different algorithms are applied not only to flawless simulated data, but also to real-world measurements. We compare five mathematical approaches for the evaluation of binding curves following pseudo-first-order kinetics with different noise levels. In addition, reflectometric interference spectroscopy (RIfS) measurements of two antibodies are evaluated to determine their binding kinetics. The advantages and disadvantages of the individual approach will be investigated and discussed in detail. In summary, we will raise awareness on how to evaluate and judge results from BIA by using different approaches rather than having to rely on "black box" closed (commercial) software packages.
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.