Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37894754›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

Bayesian Regression Quantifies Uncertainty of Binding Parameters from Isothermal Titration Calorimetry More Accurately Than Error Propagation.

Van N T La, David D L Minh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. 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. Article
  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

2 authors.

Van N T LaDepartment of Biology, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5302-3271
David D L MinhDepartment of Chemistry, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4802-2618

Funding

National Science Foundation 1905324
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compare several different methods to quantify the uncertainty of binding parameters estimated from isothermal titration calorimetry data: the asymptotic standard error from maximum likelihood estimation, error propagation based on a first-order Taylor series expansion, and the Bayesian credible interval. When the methods are applied to simulated experiments and to measurements of Mg(II) binding to EDTA, the asymptotic standard error underestimates the uncertainty in the free energy and enthalpy of binding. Error propagation overestimates the uncertainty for both quantities, except in the simulations, where it underestimates the uncertainty of enthalpy for confidence intervals less than 70%. In both datasets, Bayesian credible intervals are much closer to observed confidence intervals.

Indexed as

UncertaintyBayes TheoremCalorimetryProtein BindingThermodynamicsAsymptotic Standard Error (ASE)Bayesian Credible Interval (BCI)Confidence Interval (CI)Error Propagation (EP)Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC)Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE)

Identifiers

PMID37894754
PMCPMC10606514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.