↓ Skip to main content

Allowance for radial dilution in evaluating the concentration dependence of sedimentation coefficients for globular proteins

Overview of attention for article published in European Biophysics Journal, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Allowance for radial dilution in evaluating the concentration dependence of sedimentation coefficients for globular proteins
Published in
European Biophysics Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00249-017-1259-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trushar R. Patel, Donald J. Winzor, David J. Scott

Abstract

The accuracy with which the concentration dependence of the sedimentation coefficient, s = s (0)(1 - kc), can be quantified for globular proteins by commonly used procedures has been examined by subjecting simulated sedimentation velocity distributions for ovalbumin to c(s)‒s analysis. Because this procedure, as well as its g(s)‒s counterpart, is based on assumed constancy of s over the time course of sedimentation coefficient measurement in a given experiment, the best definition of the concentration coefficient k is obtained by associating the measured s with the mean of plateau concentrations for the initial and final distributions used for its determination. The return of a slightly underestimated k (by about 3%) is traced to minor mislocation of the air‒liquid meniscus position as the result of assuming time independence of s in a given experiment. Although more accurate quantification should result from later SEDFIT and SEDANAL programs incorporating the simultaneous evaluation of s (0) and k, the procedures based on assumed constancy of s suffice for determining the limiting sedimentation coefficient s (0)-the objective of most s‒c dependence studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 22%
Sports and Recreations 1 11%
Unknown 6 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,471,272
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from European Biophysics Journal
#280
of 491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,876
of 323,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Biophysics Journal
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 491 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 323,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.