MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398768237 · doi:10.1002/cbic.202400225

Kinetic ITC of DNA Aptamers Binding for Small Molecules and Implications for Binding Assays and Biosensors

2024· article· en· W4398768237 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuzhe Ding, Juewen Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueChemBioChem · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAptamerReceptor–ligand kineticsChemistryMolecular beaconBiosensorKineticsSmall moleculeBiophysicsDNABiochemistryOligonucleotideBiologyMolecular biologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The determination of k on and k off values through kinetic analysis is crucial for understanding the intricacies of aptamer‐target binding interactions. By employing kinetic ITC, we systematically analyzed a range of ITC data of various aptamers. Upon plotting their k on and k off values as a function of their K d values, a notable trend emerged. Across a range of K d values spanning from 28 nM to 864 μM, the k on value decreased from 2×10 5 M −1 s −1 to 96 M −1 s −1 , whereas the k off value increased from 1.03×10 −3 s −1 to 0.012 s −1 . Thus, both k on and k off contributed to the change of K d in the same direction, although the range of k on change was larger. Since experiments are often run at close to the K d value, this concentration effect also played an important role in the observed binding kinetics. The effect of these kinetic parameters on two common sensing mechanisms, including aptamer beacons and strand‐displacement assays, are discussed. This work has provided the kinetic values of small molecule binding aptamers and offered insights into aptamer‐based biosensors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemBioChemSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207