Quantifying labile protein—Ligand interactions using electrospray ionization mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ES-MS) approach for quantifying protein-ligand complexes that are prone to in-source (gas-phase) dissociation is described. The method, referred to here as the reference ligand ES-MS method, is based on the direct ES-MS assay and competitive ligand binding. A reference ligand (L(ref)), which binds specifically to the protein (P), at the same binding site as the ligand (L) of interest, with known affinity and forms a stable protein-ligand complex in the gas phase, is added to the solution. The fraction of P bound to L(ref), which is determined directly from the ES mass spectrum, is sensitive to the fraction of P bound to L in solution and enables the affinity of P for L to be determined. A mathematical framework for the implementation of the method in cases where P has one or two specific ligand binding sites is given. Affinities of two carbohydrate-binding proteins, a single chain fragment of a monoclonal antibody and the lectin concanavalin A, for monosaccharide ligands are reported and the results are shown to agree with values obtained using isothermal titration calorimetry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".