↓ Skip to main content

Quantification of Protein-Ligand Interactions by Laser Electrospray Mass Spectrometry

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Quantification of Protein-Ligand Interactions by Laser Electrospray Mass Spectrometry
Published in
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13361-018-1935-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jieutonne J. Archer, Santosh Karki, Fengjian Shi, Habiballah Sistani, Robert J. Levis

Abstract

Laser electrospray mass spectrometry (LEMS) measurement of the dissociation constant (Kd) for hen egg white lysozyme (HEWL) and N,N',N″-triacetylchitotriose (NAG3) revealed an apparent Kd value of 313.2 ± 25.9 μM for the ligand titration method. Similar measurements for N,N',N″,N″'-tetraacetylchitotetraose (NAG4) revealed an apparent Kd of 249.3 ± 13.6 μM. An electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) experiment determined a Kd value of 9.8 ± 0.6 μM. In a second LEMS approach, a calibrated measurement was used to determine a Kd value of 6.8 ± 1.5 μM for NAG3. The capture efficiency of LEMS was measured to be 3.6 ± 1.8% and is defined as the fraction of LEMS sample detected after merging with the ESI plume. When the dilution is factored into the ligand titration measurement, the adjusted Kd value was 11.3 μM for NAG3 and 9.0 μM for NAG4. The calibration method for measuring Kd developed in this study can be applied to solutions containing unknown analyte concentrations. Graphical Abstract.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 40%
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Unknown 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 20%
Sports and Recreations 1 20%
Chemistry 1 20%
Engineering 1 20%
Unknown 1 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#2,365
of 3,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,109
of 342,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#37
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,835 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 342,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.