Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Oligonucleotide therapeutics can be quantified using various bioanalytical methods, and these methods have been compared extensively. However, few comparisons exist where the same analyte is evaluated by multiple assay platforms. Hybrid LC-MS, SPE-LC-MS, HELISA and SL-RT-qPCR methods were developed for an siRNA analyte, and samples from a pharmacokinetic study were analyzed by all four methods. All assay platforms provided comparable data, though higher concentrations were observed using the non-LC-MS assays. Hybrid LC-MS and SL-RT-qPCR were the most sensitive methodologies, and SL-RT-qPCR and HELISA demonstrated the highest throughput. Each assay platform is suitable for oligonucleotide bioanalysis, and the ultimate choice of methodology will depend on the prioritization of needs such as sensitivity, specificity and throughput.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11389733 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17576180.2024.2350266 | DOI Listing |