Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 5, 2026

Cell Aggregation Assays to Evaluate the Binding of the Drosophila Notch with Trans-Ligands and its Inhibition by Cis-Ligands
Published on: January 2, 2018
Comparative Kd analysis of the interaction between aggregation-prone Nup153 3-2 and KapN
Shinyeong Lee1, ByeongJin Cho2, Jonghyuk Im1
1Department of Chemistry, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea.
Abstract:
Accurate quantification of binding affinities for intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) is challenged by their flexibility and propensity for aggregation, often requiring cross-validation across distinct biophysical methods. Here, we investigated the interaction between interacting domains of karyopherin β1 (KapN) and Nup153 (Nup153 3-2), a highly aggregation-prone IDR fragment of nucleoporin 153. To circumvent experimental time constraints imposed by rapid sample aggregation, we employed a suite of short-timescale methodologies: NMR chemical shift perturbations (CSPs), lineshape analysis, 15N-edited diffusion NMR, and isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC). Remarkably, despite relying on fundamentally different physical principles, all four methods yielded apparent dissociation constants (Kd) in the low-micromolar range, with lineshape analysis, diffusion NMR, and ITC converging closely (2-3 μM) while CSP gave a modestly lower value (1.18 μM). These findings demonstrate that cross-validating short-timescale methodologies can reveal and account for method-specific biases, providing a robust strategy for characterizing aggregation-prone biomolecular systems.
Related Concept Videos
Interpreting ¹H NMR Signal Splitting: The (n + 1) Rule
Ladder Diagrams: Complexation Equilibria
The formation constant, K1, for the formation of Cd(NH3)2+ complex from cadmium and ammonia is 3.55 × 102. Log K1 (i.e. pNH3) is 2.55, and...
Kendall's Tau Test
A τ value of +1 indicates that...
Extraction: Partition and Distribution Coefficients
For extracting a solute from an aqueous phase into an organic...
Spin–Spin Coupling: Three-Bond Coupling (Vicinal Coupling)
The extent of coupling depends on the C‑C bond length, the two H‑C‑C angles, any electron-withdrawing substituents, and the dihedral angle between the involved orbitals. The...
Spin–Spin Coupling: Two-Bond Coupling (Geminal Coupling)
The central atom need not be NMR-active because its electrons are affected by the electron polarization of the spin-active atoms. However, spin information is transmitted less effectively than in one-bond coupling, and 2J values are usually weaker than 1J values. The energy of...

