| Title |
Allowance for boundary sharpening in the determination of diffusion coefficients by sedimentation velocity: a historical perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biophysical Reviews, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12551-017-0384-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donald J. Winzor, David J. Scott |
| Abstract |
This review summarizes endeavors undertaken in the middle of last century to employ the Lamm equation for quantitative analysis of boundary spreading in sedimentation velocity experiments on globular proteins, thereby illustrating the ingenuity required to achieve that goal in an era when an approximate analytical solution of that nonlinear differential equation of second order provided the only means for its application. Application of procedures based on that approximate solution to simulated sedimentation velocity distributions has revealed a slight disparity (about 3%) between returned and input values of the diffusion coefficient-a discrepancy comparable with that of estimates obtained by current simulative analyses based on numerical solution of the Lamm equation. Although the massive technological developments in the gathering and treatment of sedimentation velocity data over the past three to four decades have changed dramatically the manner in which boundary spreading is analyzed, they have not led to any significant improvement in the accuracy of the diffusion coefficient thereby deduced. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 1 | 20% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,461,148
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Biophysical Reviews
#704
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#378,015
of 440,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biophysical Reviews
#18
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 440,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.