ArticleJournal of separation science2025
Quantifying Biomolecular Interactions in High-Conductivity Samples With Capillary Electrophoresis.
Article in Journal of separation science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantifying Biomolecular Interactions in High-Conductivity Samples With Capillary Electrophoresis.Journal of separation science · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Capillary electrophoresis (CE) is a powerful tool for studying biomolecular interactions due to its high speed, low sample consumption, and adaptability. However, challenges arise when sample buffers possess higher conductivity than the background electrolyte (BGE), leading to peak distortions and reduced measurement accuracy in binding assays such as affinity probe CE and nonequilibrium CE of equilibrium mixtures. This study investigates these effects using a combination of simulation and experiment, focusing on aptamer-protein interactions. Moderate conductivity mismatches (e.g., sample buffer = 2 × tris glycine, BGE = 30 mM tricine) led to peak splitting artifacts, whereas large mismatches (e.g., sample buffer = phosphate-buffered saline, BGE = 30 mM tricine) produced broad, indistinct peaks, obscuring free and bound species. Simulations revealed that these artifacts arise from analyte ions trapped in high-conductivity sample plugs and are exacerbated by longer injection times. Experimental results confirmed that reducing plug length and selectively excluding artifact peaks during analysis improves quantification accuracy. When traditional separation fails under high-conductivity conditions, we propose an alternative method based on quantifying the "de-stacked" fraction of aptamers escaping the sample zone. This approach yielded values for the dissociation constant (K
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.