Talk:Single-chain variable fragment

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Acronym[edit]

How does "scFv" correspond to "Single Chain Variable Fragment"? Google shows that "Single Chain Fragment Variable" is also in use, isn't that more accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.90.154 (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fv = Variable Fragment and Fc=Constant Fragment. You should see the "Fv" as a single entity in its own (i.e. sc"Fv"). Technically, if you keep acronyms literally, DNA should be written as something like "DORNA" or "DRNA" as opposed to RNA that would stay RNA. Jmmo20 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "explanation" above that DNA would be dissimilar to RNA as abbreviation is completely false; the first character is the primary sugar, deoxyribose versus ribose, hence DNA and RNA. But let's ignore this example - the original comment is a very good one. Why does "Fv" translate to "variable fragment" rather than "fragment variable"? I don't feel this is very intuitive at all. The best explanation I can come up with is a historic reason for this. I think in the long run it may be useful to add a small subsection with that historic reason for that strange abbreviation. 2A02:8388:1604:CA80:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociation rates of diabodies[edit]

Most of the publications suggesting that the affinity of diabodies can be increased by a factor of 40 are very poorly performed or even wrong. The reason is that most reviewers don't understand binding kinetics and researches doing SPR often also not. Everything beyond a total KD of 1/KD = 1/KD1 + 1/KD2 + .. is likely due to rebinding and very bad data fitting. I am getting sick when I read crap like this. It is just not physically possible to achieve these rates. There is even a nice book article explaining the theoretical maximum KD of multivalent analytes: Krishnamurthy VM, Estroff LA, Whitesides GM. Multivalency in Ligand Design. Fragment-based Approaches in Drug Discovery: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA; 2006. p. 11-53. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.44.220 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]