Mobility‐based correction for accurate determination of binding constants by capillary electrophoresis‐frontal analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capillary electrophoresis frontal analysis (CE-FA) can be used to determine binding affinity of molecular interactions. However, its current data processing method mandate specific requirement on the mobilities of the binding pair in order to obtain accurate binding constants. This work shows that significant errors are resulted when the mobilities of the interacting species do not meet these requirements. Therefore, the applicability of CE-FA in many real word applications becomes questionable. An electrophoretic mobility-based correction method is developed in this work based on the flux of each species. A simulation program and a pair of model compounds are used to verify the new equations and evaluate the effectiveness of this method. Ibuprofen and hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrinare used to demonstrate the differences in the obtained binding constant by CE-FA when different calculation methods are used, and the results are compared with those obtained by affinity capillary electrophoresis (ACE). The results suggest that CE-FA, with the mobility-based correction method, can be a generally applicable method for a much wider range of applications.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".