4.5 Article

Experimental design and measurement uncertainty in ligand binding studies by affinity capillary electrophoresis

期刊

ELECTROPHORESIS
卷 40, 期 7, 页码 1041-1054

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/elps.201800450

关键词

Affinity capillary electrophoresis; Drug binding studies; Experimental design; Ligand binding assay; Measurement uncertainty

资金

  1. CASSS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In all life sciences ligand binding assays (LBAs) play a crucial role. Unfortunately these are very error prone. One part of this uncertainty results from the unavoidable random measurement uncertainty, another part can be attributed to the experimental design. To investigate the latter, uncertainty propagation was evaluated as a function of the given experimental design. A design space including the normalized maximum response range (nMRR), the data point position (DPP), the data point range (DPR) and the number of data points (NoDP) was defined. Based on ten measured ms ACE source data sets 20 specific parameter sets were selected by Design of Experiments. Monte Carlo simulations using 100 000 repeats for every parameter set were employed. The resulting measurement uncertainty propagation factors (measurement uncertainty multiplier: MUM) were used to describe the whole design space by polynomial regression. The resulting 5-dimensional response surface was investigated to evaluate the design parameter's influence and to find the minimal uncertainty propagation. It could be shown, that the nMRR is of highest importance, followed by DPP and DPR. Interestingly, the NoDP is less relevant. However, the interactions of the four parameters need to be carefully considered during design optimization. Using at least five data points which cover over 40% of the upper part of the binding hyperbola (DPP > 0.57) the MUM will be minimized (MUM approximately 1.5) when the nMRR is appropriate. It is possible to reduce the measurement uncertainty propagation more than one order of magnitude.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据