I was looking at some experimental data for drug molecules binding to a pharmaceutically relevant protein.
The numbers reported were as percentages of binding relative to a standard which was defined to be 100%. Here's how they looked:
97.3 + - (plus or minus) 68.4
79.4 + - 96.1
59.5 + - 55.3
1.4 + - 2.5
Seriously, how did the reviewers allow this to go through?
- Home
- Angry by Choice
- Catalogue of Organisms
- Chinleana
- Doc Madhattan
- Games with Words
- Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
- History of Geology
- Moss Plants and More
- Pleiotropy
- Plektix
- RRResearch
- Skeptic Wonder
- The Culture of Chemistry
- The Curious Wavefunction
- The Phytophactor
- The View from a Microbiologist
- Variety of Life
Field of Science
-
-
-
-
A meditation on the year to come1 week ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
-
Some thoughts on "broader impact" statements for scientific papers4 weeks ago in The Curious Wavefunction
-
-
Does mathematics carry human biases?3 months ago in PLEKTIX
-
-
-
Daily routine10 months ago in Angry by Choice
-
-
-
A New Placodont from the Late Triassic of China1 year ago in Chinleana
-
Posted: July 22, 2018 at 03:03PM2 years ago in Field Notes
-
Bryophyte Herbarium Survey3 years ago in Moss Plants and More
-
Harnessing innate immunity to cure HIV4 years ago in Rule of 6ix
-
WE MOVED!4 years ago in Games with Words
-
-
-
-
post doc job opportunity on ribosome biochemistry!5 years ago in Protein Evolution and Other Musings
-
Growing the kidney: re-blogged from Science Bitez5 years ago in The View from a Microbiologist
-
Blogging Microbes- Communicating Microbiology to Netizens6 years ago in Memoirs of a Defective Brain
-
-
-
The Lure of the Obscure? Guest Post by Frank Stahl8 years ago in Sex, Genes & Evolution
-
-
Lab Rat Moving House9 years ago in Life of a Lab Rat
-
Goodbye FoS, thanks for all the laughs9 years ago in Disease Prone
-
-
Slideshow of NASA's Stardust-NExT Mission Comet Tempel 1 Flyby9 years ago in The Large Picture Blog
-
in The Biology Files

6 comments:
Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What paper was this!?
ReplyDeleteum... it was probably gotten via a plate reader and an enzymologist. +/- 100% is par for the course where I am from.
ReplyDeleteOnce I received from a pharma company some odd luciferase assay results belonging to an experiment we were collaborating. According to them, my plasmid was not working.
ReplyDeleteThe results were so unanticipated that I asked for raw data to better understand. As usual, they were normalizing luminometer data with protein content. Apparently, they got a problem to lyse the cells and both, BOTH luminometer and protein microplate data were negative (were slightly inferior than blanks). They did not care and divided both values obtaining such a strange results:
raw RLU: 12
luminometer blank: 20
net RLU: -8
raw protein: 0.100
protein blank: 0.300
net protein: -0.200
RLU/prot = -8/-0.2 = 40 !!!
96well; That sounds pretty ridiculous! I try to do "predictive" modeling and it's not clear to me how to use such data and assign it activity values in the model. In any case, as you note, it can be immensely valuable to look at the raw data which unfortunately is not always reported.
ReplyDeleteMilo: Then how does one actually use such numbers?
The data are from a binding assay for a GPCR by the way
I've met the article that do QSAR with such values (don't ask I dnt remember :)
ReplyDeleteAlso I think that for IC50 (EC50, etc) it's quite normal values
Should I then be surprised that predictive modeling does not work?!
ReplyDelete