Biosensor binding data and its applicability to the determination of active concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein concentration data are required for understanding protein interactions and are a prerequisite for the determination of affinity and kinetic properties. It is vital for the judgment of protein quality and for monitoring the effect of therapeutic agents. Protein concentration values are typically obtained by comparison to a standard and derived from a standard curve. The use of a protein standard is convenient, but may not give reliable results if samples and standards behave differently. In other cases, a standard preparation may not be available and has to be established and validated. Using surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensors, an alternative concentration method is possible. This method is called calibration-free concentration analysis (CFCA); it generates active concentration data directly and without the use of a standard. The active concentration of a protein is defined through its interaction with its binding partner. This concentration can differ from the total protein concentration if some protein fraction is incapable of binding. If a protein has several different binding sites, active concentration data can be established for each binding site using site-specific interaction partners. This review will focus on CFCA analysis. It will reiterate the theory of CFCA and describe how CFCA has been applied in different research segments. The major part of the review will, however, try to set expectations on CFCA and discuss how CFCA can be further developed for absolute and relative concentration measurements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".