Label-Free Technologies: Which Technique to Use and What to Watch Out for!

  • Reena Halai
  • Matthew CooperEmail author
Part of the Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology book series (MIPT)


The number of different label-free platforms available for drug discovery and life science research has exploded in the last decade. Until the late 1990s, the field was dominated by just four technologies: mass spectrometry (MS), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), calorimetry, and surface plasmon resonance (SPR). Commercial systems based on these technologies were marketed as “easy to use,” with companies and review writers (including ourselves Open image in new window ) promoting the virtues of “label-free” assays, their inherent simplicity, and direct, easy-to-interpret results. However, label-free technologies often require carefully designed experimental controls and analytical rigor in the interpretation of what at first appears to be simplistic data. As with any assay technology, label-free platforms are also affected by physical and biological artifacts, which can be erroneously interpreted to be related to drug action. In this chapter we review the fundamentals of drug action in a biological system, the physical basis of different label-free systems, and then discuss the advantages and artifacts associated with each technique. We hope that this will help guide the reader towards a rational choice of technology for their particular project. Forearmed with an awareness of the pitfalls that can lead a beguiled label-free devotee astray, label-free assays can indeed illuminate the complex biology of drug action.

Key words

Drug action Design of experiment Data quality Robustness Reproducibility Experimental controls Binding affinity Binding specificity Binding kinetics Binding thermodynamics 


  1. 1.
    Yin N, Pei J, Lai L (2013) A comprehensive analysis of the influence of drug binding kinetics on drug action at molecular and systems levels. Mol Biosyst 9:1381–1389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Copeland RA, Pompliano DL, Meek TD (2006) Drug-target residence time and its implications for lead optimization. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5:730–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jecklin MC, Touboul D, Bovet C, Wortmann A, Zenobi R (2008) Which electrospray-based ionization method best reflects protein-ligand interactions found in solution? a comparison of ESI, nanoESI, and ESSI for the determination of dissociation constants with mass spectrometry. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 19:332–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jecklin MC, Schauer S, Dumelin CE, Zenobi R (2009) Label-free determination of protein-ligand binding constants using mass spectrometry and validation using surface plasmon resonance and isothermal titration calorimetry. J Mol Recognit 22:319–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniel JRM, Friess SD, Rajagopalan S, Wendt S, Zenobi R (2002) Quantitative determination of noncovalent binding interactions using soft ionization mass spectrometry. Int J Mass Spectrom 216:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hossain BM, Simmons DA, Konermann L (2005) Do electrospray mass spectra reflect the ligand binding state of proteins in solution? Can J Chem 83:1953–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruotolo BT, Robinson CV (2006) Aspects of native proteins are retained in vacuum. Curr Opin Chem Biol 10:402–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Duijn E (2010) Current limitations in native mass spectrometry based structural biology. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 21:971–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mathur S, Badertscher M, Scott M, Zenobi R (2007) Critical evaluation of mass spectrometric measurement of dissociation constants: accuracy and cross-validation against surface plasmon resonance and circular dichroism for the calmodulin-melittin system. Phys Chem Chem Phys 9:6187–6198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashcroft AE (2005) Recent developments in electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry: noncovalently bound protein complexes. Nat Prod Rep 22:452–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freyer MW, Lewis EA (2008) Isothermal titration calorimetry: experimental design, data analysis, and probing macromolecule/ligand binding and kinetic interactions. In: Correia JJ, Detrich HW (eds) Methods in cell biology. Academic, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghai R, Falconer RJ, Collins BM (2011) Applications of isothermal titration calorimetry in pure and applied research: survey of the literature from 2010. J Mol Recognit 25:32–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baranauskiene L, Petrikaite V, Matuliene J, Matulis D (2009) Titration calorimetry standards and the precision of isothermal titration calorimetry data. Int J Mol Sci 10:2752–2762CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duhr S, Braun D (2006) Why molecules move along a temperature gradient. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:19678–19682CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seidel SA, Dijkman PM, Lea WA, van den Bogaart G, Jerabek-Willemsen M, Lazic A, Joseph JS, Srinivasan P, Baaske P, Simeonov A, Katritch I, Melo FA, Ladbury JE, Schreiber G, Watts A, Braun D, Duhr S (2013) Microscale thermophoresis quantifies biomolecular interactions under previously challenging conditions. Methods 59:301–315CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooper MA (2002) Optical biosensors in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1:515–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cunningham BT, Li P, Schulz S, Lin B, Baird C, Gerstenmaier J, Genick C, Wang F, Fine E, Laing L (2004) Label-free assays on the BIND system. J Biomol Screen 9:481–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cunningham BT (2009) Label-free optical biosensors: an introduction. In: Cooper MA (ed) Label-free biosensors techniques and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nordin H, Jungnelius M, Karlsson R, Karlsson OP (2005) Kinetic studies of small molecule interactions with protein kinases using biosensor technology. Anal Biochem 340:359–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huber W, Perspicace S, Kohler J, Muller F, Schlatter D (2004) SPR-based interaction studies with small molecular weight ligands using hAGT fusion proteins. Anal Biochem 333:280–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fang Y, Ferrie AM, Fontaine NH, Yuen PK (2005) Characteristics of dynamic mass redistribution of epidermal growth factor receptor signaling in living cells measured with label-free optical biosensors. Anal Chem 77:5720–5725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Halai R, Cooper MA (2012) Using label-free screening technology to improve efficiency in drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 7:123–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karlsson R (2009) Experimental design. In: Cooper MA (ed) Label-free biosensors techniques and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cooper MA (2009) Sensor surfaces and receptor deposition. In: Cooper MA (ed) Label-free biosensors techniques and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rich RL, Myszka DG (2000) Advances in surface plasmon resonance biosensor analysis. Curr Opin Biotechnol 11:54–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malmqvist M (1999) BIACORE: an affinity biosensor system for characterization of biomolecular interactions. Biochem Soc Trans 27:335–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Myszka DG, Jonsen MD, Graves BJ (1998) Equilibrium analysis of high affinity interactions using BIACORE. Anal Biochem 265:326–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huber W (2009) Application of SPR technology to pharmaceutical relevant drug-receptor interactions. In: Cooper MA (ed) Label-free biosensors techniques and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frostell-Karlsson A, Remaeus A, Roos H, Andersson K, Borg P, Hamalainen M, Karlsson R (2000) Biosensor analysis of the interaction between immobilized human serum albumin and drug compounds for prediction of human serum albumin binding levels. J Med Chem 43:1986–1992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Institute for Molecular Bioscience, Queensland Bioscience PrecinctThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations