ArticleBiophysical journal2026
Multiple data set Bayesian analysis synergistically boosts ITC parameter precision.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Walking the tightrope: Balancing opposing cooperativities in dynein assembly.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2026Article
- Walking the Tightrope: Balancing Opposing Cooperativities as an Operating Principle in Dynein Assembly.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
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
Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) is a powerful technique for probing biomolecular interactions. However, accurate and precise determination of binding parameters-such as enthalpy and free energy, as well as associated uncertainties-can be hindered by noise and concentration variability. In particular, the recently noted mathematical ambiguity surrounding analyte concentrations intrinsically limits the precision with which binding parameters can be determined. Here, we compare several Bayesian approaches to validate a pipeline that resolves this ambiguity by combining two key strategies: simultaneous analysis of multiple ITC data sets and a hierarchical Bayesian treatment of analyte concentration priors. Together, these strategies lift the degeneracy inherent in single-data-set studies and remove an ambiguity typically present in Bayesian analysis by self-consistently refining concentration estimates. This enables optimal joint inference of binding parameters and concentrations while delivering a precision gain that surpasses conventional square-root-of-n averaging expectations through hierarchical information sharing across data sets. Leveraging modern Monte Carlo methods, our pipeline performs robust posterior sampling for more than 10 data sets and 40 total parameters. We validate the framework with synthetic ITC data sets for single- and multisite binding models and demonstrate its utility on experimental data, including 14 data sets for 1:1 binding of Mg(II) to the chelator EDTA and four data sets of the hub protein LC8 with its binding partner VP35. This work serves as a foundation for improving the precision of binding constants using multiple ITC data sets while providing a systematic framework for assessing the reliability of experimental concentration estimates, paving the way for more accurate biomolecular interaction studies.
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.