↓ Skip to main content

Multiple analyses of protein dynamics in solution

Overview of attention for article published in Biophysical Reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Multiple analyses of protein dynamics in solution
Published in
Biophysical Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12551-017-0354-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tadayuki Ogawa, Nobutaka Hirokawa

Abstract

The need for accurate description of protein behavior in solution has gained importance in various fields, including biophysics, biochemistry, structural biology, drug discovery, and antibody drugs. To achieve the desired accuracy, multiple precise analyses should be performed on the target molecule, compared, and effectively combined. This review focuses on the combination of multiple analyses in solution: size-exclusion chromatography (SEC), multi-angle light scattering (MALS), small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS), analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC), and their complementary methods, such as atomic force microscopy (AFM) and mass spectrometry (MS). We also discuss the comparison between the determined molar mass value of not only the standard proteins, but of a target molecule tubulin and its depolymerizing protein, KIF2, as an example. The comparison of the estimated molar mass value from the different methods provides additional information about the target molecule, because the value reflects the dynamically changing states of the target molecule in solution. The combination and integration of multiple methods will permit a deeper understanding of protein dynamics in solution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Chemistry 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,578,649
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Biophysical Reviews
#496
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,005
of 439,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biophysical Reviews
#28
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 799 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 439,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.