tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1136153439451224584.post3686970231257852631..comments2024-03-27T06:45:59.174-07:00Comments on Practical Fragments: Multiple methods find fragments on MEK1, but fluorimetry shinesDr. Teddy Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07288045760981372367noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1136153439451224584.post-1472431553540393492014-12-08T03:54:45.196-08:002014-12-08T03:54:45.196-08:00Generally, yes, but Id say this is more a reflecti...Generally, yes, but Id say this is more a reflection of the techniques used.<br /><br />2 Things:<br />1)<br />SPR is VERY sensitive for bad behaviour and you really dont want to challange solubility. DSF will generally not give false positives as easily and higher conc is more feasible.<br />2) sensitiivity. SPR, when it works well can handle partial occupancy just fine (i.e. no need to be at or close to saturating affinities) while DSF typically do benifit significantly of higher concentration (as long as cpds stay soluble that is). Id say 500uM is quite conservative, generally i prefere 1mM for DSF (unless its a high hit rate target as a kinase) where dropping down a bit can make sense.<br />Andreasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1136153439451224584.post-46733215133054928532013-06-17T02:31:08.351-07:002013-06-17T02:31:08.351-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Biowebspin Administratorhttp://www.biowebspin.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1136153439451224584.post-20142077865220402212013-06-11T21:14:05.043-07:002013-06-11T21:14:05.043-07:00Do you think the fragment screening concentration ...Do you think the fragment screening concentration plays a significant role in hit identification? I noticed that the authors use 500 uM for the DSF and 200 uM for SPR.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com