Multi-Temperature Experiments to Ease Analysis of Heterogeneous Binder Solutions by Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract SPR biosensing is a well-established tool for the investigation of binding kinetics between a soluble species and an immobilized (bio)molecule. While robust and accurate data analysis techniques are readily available for single species, methods to exploit data collected with a solution containing multiple interactants are scarce. In a previous study, our group proposed two data analysis algorithms for 1) the precise and reliable identification of the kinetic parameters of N interactants present at different ratios in N mixtures and 2) the estimation of the composition of a given mixture, assuming that the kinetic parameters and the total concentration of all interactants are known. Here, we extend the first algorithm by reducing the number of necessary mixtures. This is achieved by conducting experiments at different temperatures. Through the Van’t Hoff and Eyring equations, identifying the kinetic and thermodynamic parameters of N binders becomes possible with M mixtures with M comprised between 2 and N and at least N/M temperatures. The second algorithm is improved by adding the total analyte concentration as a supplementary variable to be identified in an optimization routine. We validated our analysis framework experimentally with a system consisting of mixtures of low molecular weight drugs, each competing to bind to an immobilized protein. We believe that the analysis of mixtures and composition estimation could pave the way for SPR biosensing to become a bioprocess monitoring tool, on top of expanding its already substantial role in drug discovery and development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".