ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2022
CLAffinity: A Software Tool for Identification of Optimum Ligand Affinity for Competition-Based Primary Screens.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kinase-inhibitor binding affinity prediction with pretrained graph encoder and language model.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Soft lithography-based biomolecule patterning techniques and their applications in subcellular protein interaction analysis.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Binding Curve Viewer: Visualizing the Equilibrium and Kinetics of Protein-Ligand Binding and Competitive Binding.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A simplistic assumption in setting up a competition assay is that a low affinity labeled ligand can be more easily displaced from a target protein than a high affinity ligand, which in turn produces a more sensitive assay. An often-cited paper correctly rallies against this assumption and recommends the use of the highest affinity ligand available for experiments aiming to determine competitive inhibitor affinities. However, we have noted this advice being applied incorrectly to competition-based primary screens where the goal is optimum assay sensitivity, enabling a clear yes/no binding determination for even low affinity interactions. The published advice only applies to secondary, confirmatory assays intended for accurate affinity determination of primary screening hits. We demonstrate that using very high affinity ligands in competition-based primary screening can lead to reduced assay sensitivity and, ultimately, the discarding of potentially valuable active compounds. We build on techniques developed in our PyBindingCurve software for a mechanistic understanding of complex biological interaction systems, developing the "CLAffinity tool" for simulating competition experiments using protein, ligand, and inhibitor concentrations common to drug screening campaigns. CLAffinity reveals optimum labeled ligand affinity ranges based on assay parameters, rather than general rules to optimize assay sensitivity. We provide the open source CLAffinity software toolset to carry out assay simulations and a video summarizing key findings to aid in understanding, along with a simple lookup table allowing identification of optimal dynamic ranges for competition-based primary screens. The application of our freely available software and lookup tables will lead to the consistent creation of more performant competition-based primary screens identifying valuable hit compounds, particularly for difficult targets.
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.