↓ Skip to main content

On the use of ultracentrifugal devices for routine sample preparation in biomolecular magic-angle-spinning NMR

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomolecular NMR, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 619)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
On the use of ultracentrifugal devices for routine sample preparation in biomolecular magic-angle-spinning NMR
Published in
Journal of Biomolecular NMR, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10858-017-0089-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abhishek Mandal, Jennifer C. Boatz, Travis B. Wheeler, Patrick C. A. van der Wel

Abstract

A number of recent advances in the field of magic-angle-spinning (MAS) solid-state NMR have enabled its application to a range of biological systems of ever increasing complexity. To retain biological relevance, these samples are increasingly studied in a hydrated state. At the same time, experimental feasibility requires the sample preparation process to attain a high sample concentration within the final MAS rotor. We discuss these considerations, and how they have led to a number of different approaches to MAS NMR sample preparation. We describe our experience of how custom-made (or commercially available) ultracentrifugal devices can facilitate a simple, fast and reliable sample preparation process. A number of groups have since adopted such tools, in some cases to prepare samples for sedimentation-style MAS NMR experiments. Here we argue for a more widespread adoption of their use for routine MAS NMR sample preparation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 18 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Unspecified 3 6%
Physics and Astronomy 3 6%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,325,874
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomolecular NMR
#36
of 619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,126
of 312,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomolecular NMR
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them