Integrative biophysical characterization of molecular interactions: A case study with the sfGFP–nanobody complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares several analytical biophysical methods for investigating protein-protein interactions (PPIs) in solution, using the interaction between superfolder green fluorescent protein (sfGFP) and its anti-sfGFP nanobody enhancer as a model system. Techniques evaluated include microscale thermophoresis, fluorescence correlation spectroscopy, analytical ultracentrifugation with multi-wavelength and fluorescence detection, isothermal titration calorimetry, and analytical size exclusion chromatography coupled to multi-angle static light scattering and dynamic light scattering. Each method was assessed for information content, dynamic range, precision, and complementarity. The results consistently indicate a single-digit nanomolar dissociation constant and 1:1 stoichiometry for the interaction. While each technique offers unique insights into binding affinity, thermodynamics, and stoichiometry of the interaction, the multi-method approach provides a more complete and reliable characterization of PPIs. The study demonstrates how combining multiple complementary techniques enhances the robustness of PPI analysis in solution-phase conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".