Moving of fluorescence polarization about bao

[sschurer]

are you sure about that. binding , but not immuno.

…

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:27 PM Daniel Cooper ***@***.***> wrote: The term "Fluorescence Polarization" (currently assay method component --> physical detection method --> fluorescence method, http://www.bioassayontology.org/bao#BAO_0000003) would fit better in the tree under immunoassay-->ex situ immunoassay ( http://www.bioassayontology.org/bao#BAO_0000466) and renamed to "Fluorescence Polarization Assay". While fluorescence polarization is technically a process/method that is exploited in the assay, it seems to be very specific to a subtype of immunoassay, similarly to ELISA, rather than a more generalized reaction or process. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#33?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAQF7WH5YNK4BIDZ55JK4C3QP5AYDA5CNFSM4JDTSQ32YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4HTSU3YA>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQF7WG2AHVO3GJIXN7HNC3QP5AYDANCNFSM4JDTSQ3Q> .

[sschurer]

see here for more details: you may be right with immuno, but I think it is applicable to other interactions Detection method is clearly fluorescence polarization; assay design method would be binding assessment via fluorescence polarization. but this is just out of my head https://www.bmglabtech.com/fluorescence-polarization/ On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:18 AM Stephan Schürer, PhD < [email protected]> wrote:

…

are you sure about that. binding , but not immuno. On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:27 PM Daniel Cooper ***@***.***> wrote: > The term "Fluorescence Polarization" (currently assay method component > --> physical detection method --> fluorescence method, > http://www.bioassayontology.org/bao#BAO_0000003) would fit better in the > tree under immunoassay-->ex situ immunoassay ( > http://www.bioassayontology.org/bao#BAO_0000466) and renamed to > "Fluorescence Polarization Assay". > > While fluorescence polarization is technically a process/method that is > exploited in the assay, it seems to be very specific to a subtype of > immunoassay, similarly to ELISA, rather than a more generalized reaction or > process. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#33?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAQF7WH5YNK4BIDZ55JK4C3QP5AYDA5CNFSM4JDTSQ32YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4HTSU3YA>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQF7WG2AHVO3GJIXN7HNC3QP5AYDANCNFSM4JDTSQ3Q> > . >

[djc183]

Yes, it is used with other interaction types, but FPIA (fluorescence polarization immunoassay) is a common implementation of the polarization concept.

We can say that the design method is polarization, and have the individual assays, such as FIPA, under their respective sections as methods (i.e. ex situ immunoassay mentioned above). Would that be reasonable?

[sschurer]

makes sense. Thank you

…

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 4:20 PM Daniel Cooper ***@***.***> wrote: Yes, it is used with other interaction types, but FPIA (fluorescence polarization immunoassay) is a common implementation of the polarization concept. We can say that the design method is polarization, and have the individual assays, such as FIPA, under their respective sections as methods (i.e. ex situ immunoassay mentioned above). Would that be reasonable? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#33?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAQF7WA3K6LF6Y4PWANFBVLQQCW2JA5CNFSM4JDTSQ32YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECCXYOQ#issuecomment-545619002>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQF7WFWWARIA3RZAKKYLN3QQCW2JANCNFSM4JDTSQ3Q> .

[handemcginty]

fluorescence polarization stays as is, FPIA (fluorescence polarization immunoassay) will be added under immunoassay-->ex situ immunoassay