Comparison of Total Protein Concentration in Skeletal Muscle as Measured by the Bradford and Lowry Assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lowry and Bradford assays are the most commonly used methods of total protein quantification, yet vary in several aspects. To date, no comparisons have been made in skeletal muscle. We compared total protein concentrations of mouse red and white gastrocnemius, reagent stability, protein stability and range of linearity using both assays. The Lowry averaged protein concentrations 15% higher than the Bradford with a moderate correlation (r = 0.36, P = 0.01). However, Bland-Altman analysis revealed considerable bias (15.8 +/- 29.7%). Both Lowry reagents and its protein-reagent interactions were less stable over time than the Bradford. The linear range of concentration was smaller for the Lowry (0.05-0.50 mg/ml) than the Bradford (0-2.0 mg/ml). We conclude that the Bradford and Lowry measures of total protein concentration in skeletal muscle are not interchangeable. The Bradford and Lowry assays have various strengths and weaknesses in terms of substance interference and protein size. However, the Bradford provides greater reagent stability, protein-reagent stability and range of linearity, and requires less time to analyse compared to the Lowry assay.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".