Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34800148›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2022

Stoichiometric approach to quantitative analysis of biomolecules: the case of nucleic acids.

Adeyinka Adegbenro, Seth Coleman, Irina V Nesterova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Adeyinka AdegbenroDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA.
Seth ColemanDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA.
Irina V NesterovaDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA. inesterova@niu.edu.

Funding

A NEW APPROACH TO QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF BIOMARKERSR15GM135796 · NIGMS · NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY · PI NESTEROVA, IRINA V · 2020 to 2020
$395k
NIGMS NIH HHS R15 GM135796
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Majority of protocols for quantitative analysis of biomarkers (including nucleic acids) require calibrations and target standards. In this work, we developed a principle for quantitative analysis that eliminates the need for a standard of a target molecule. The approach is based on stoichiometric reporting. While stoichiometry is a simple and robust analytical platform, its utility toward the analysis of biomolecules is very limited due to the lack of general methodologies for detecting the equivalence point. In this work, we engineer a new target/probe-binding model that enables detecting the equivalence point while maintaining an appropriate level of specificity. We establish the probe design principles through theoretical simulations and experimental confirmation. Further, we demonstrate the utility of the stoichiometric analysis via a proof-of-concept system based on oligonucleotide hybridization. Overall, the approach that requires neither standard nor calibration yields quantitative results with an adequate accuracy (> 90-110%) and a high specificity. The principles established in our work are very general and can extend beyond oligonucleotide targets toward quantitative analysis of many other biomolecules such as antibodies and proteins.

Indexed as

BiomarkersHumansNucleic Acid ConformationNucleic Acid HybridizationNucleic AcidsOligonucleotidesBiomarkersNucleic AcidsOligonucleotidesBiomoleculesNegative cooperativityNucleic acidsQuantitative analysisStoichiometry

Identifiers

PMID34800148
PMCPMC8766926

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.