4.7 Article

Comparison of methods for quantitative biomolecular interaction analysis

Journal

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 414, Issue 1, Pages 661-673

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-021-03623-x

Keywords

Reflectometric interference spectroscopy; Biomolecular interaction analysis; Binding kinetics; Association rate constant; Pseudo-first-order kinetics

Funding

  1. Projekt DEAL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares different approaches and algorithms for determining kinetic rate constants in biomolecular interaction analysis. It evaluates five mathematical methods for binding curve evaluation and analyzes reflectometric interference spectroscopy measurements to determine antibody binding kinetics. The advantages and disadvantages of each approach are discussed in detail, emphasizing the importance of using different methods for evaluating BIA results.
In order to perform good kinetic experiments, not only the experimental conditions have to be optimized, but the evaluation procedure as well. The focus of this work is the in-depth comparison of different approaches and algorithms to determine kinetic rate constants for biomolecular interaction analysis (BIA). The different algorithms are applied not only to flawless simulated data, but also to real-world measurements. We compare five mathematical approaches for the evaluation of binding curves following pseudo-first-order kinetics with different noise levels. In addition, reflectometric interference spectroscopy (RIfS) measurements of two antibodies are evaluated to determine their binding kinetics. The advantages and disadvantages of the individual approach will be investigated and discussed in detail. In summary, we will raise awareness on how to evaluate and judge results from BIA by using different approaches rather than having to rely on black box closed (commercial) software packages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available