ReviewBiophysical reviews2025
Differential scanning fluorimetry followed by microscale thermophoresis and/or isothermal titration calorimetry as an efficient tool for ligand screening.
Review in Biophysical reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tagged and untagged amyloid precursor protein E2 domain have comparable thermal stability and metal-ion binding propensity.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Label-Free and Immobilization-Free Protein-Binding Assays by Ultraviolet Transient Absorption Microscopy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- A guide to building the matrisome interactome: from computational predictions to experimental validation.The FEBS journal · 2026Review
- Protein-Ligand Interactions: Recent Advances in Biophysics, Biochemistry, and Bioinformatics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Applications of Isothermal Titration Calorimetry in Studying Biomimetic Nanocarriers.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Overcoming translational barriers in RNA-protein docking: enhancing computational accuracy for targeted drug discovery.Future medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various biophysical and biochemical techniques have been developed to measure the affinity of interacting molecules. This review analyzes the combination of three methods: differential scanning fluorimetry as the initial high-throughput screening technique and microscale thermophoresis and isothermal titration calorimetry as complementary methods to quantify binding affinity. The presented work is the first to detailed compare the strengths and flaws of these three specific methods, as well as their application possibilities and complementarity. The fundamentals of these methods will be covered, including the most often-used models for characterizing observable phenomena and an emphasis on methods for analyzing data. A comprehensive review of numerous approaches to data analysis found in the literature is additionally provided, with the benefits and drawbacks of each, as well as the pitfalls and related concerns. Finally, examples of different systems will be presented, and methods used and some discrepancies in results will be described and discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.