Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 12;28(10):1880–1887. doi: 10.1002/pro.3701

Table 1.

Comparison of K D between ITC, SPR, or ΔTm

a K D (μM)
Protein Ligand bITC or SPR c Tm
dBASE1 Cmpd 3 14 ± 1.4 5.9 ± 0.59
Cmpd 4 5.4 ± 0.54 5 ± 0.5
Cmpd 5 4.8 ± 0.48 3.1 ± 0.31
Cmpd 6 3 ± 0.3 1.2 ± 0.12
Cmpd 7 2.9 ± 0.29 0.9 ± 0.09
Cmpd 8 2.9 ± 0.29 1.8 ± 0.18
Cmpd 9 1.2 ± 0.12 2.3 ± 0.23
Cmpd 10 0.6 ± 0.06 1.4 ± 0.14
ecGAS PF‐06928215 6.7 ± 0.67 3.2 ± 0.32
Cmpd 17 0.2 ± 0.02 0.4 ± 0.04
Cmpd 18 2.7 ± 0.27 3.1 ± 0.31
Cmpd 19 13 ± 1.3 12 ± 1.2
fNBD1 ADP 19 ± 1.9 6 ± 0.6
AMPPNP 11 ± 1.1 5 ± 0.5
ATP 2.4 ± 0.24 1.2 ± 0.12
PhET‐ATP 0.3 ± 0.03 0.3 ± 0.03
a

Standard error is estimated at 10% of values.

b

Affinities were determined by ITC for BASE1 and by SPR for cGAS and NBD1.

c

Slope and intercept values for ΔTm‐derived affinities were determined without data for the proteins they were to fit.

d

Without BASE1, the global slope and intercept values are −130.3 (±5.4) and −1.9 (±0.21).

e

Without cGAS, the global slope and intercept values are −131.2 (±5.3) and −1.9 (±0.20).

f

Without NBD1, the global slope and intercept values are −129.7 (±5.2) and −2.0(±0.20).