Determination of the composition of heterogeneous binder solutions by surface plasmon resonance biosensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface plasmon resonance-based biosensors have been extensively applied to the characterization of the binding kinetics between purified (bio)molecules, thanks to robust data analysis techniques. However, data analysis for solutions containing multiple interactants is still at its infancy. We here present two algorithms for (1) the reliable and accurate determination of the kinetic parameters of N interactants present at different ratios in N mixtures and (2) the estimation of the ratios of each interactant in a given mixture, assuming that their kinetic parameters are known. Both algorithms assume that the interactants compete to bind to an immobilized ligand in a 1:1 fashion and necessitate prior knowledge of the total concentration of all interactants combined. The effectiveness of these two algorithms was experimentally validated with a model system corresponding to mixtures of four small molecular weight drugs binding to an immobilized protein. This approach enables the in-depth characterization of mixtures using SPR, which may be of considerable interest for many drug discovery or development applications, notably for protein glycovariant analysis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".