↓ Skip to main content

Thermodynamics of protein–ligand interactions as a reference for computational analysis: how to assess accuracy, reliability and relevance of experimental data

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
Thermodynamics of protein–ligand interactions as a reference for computational analysis: how to assess accuracy, reliability and relevance of experimental data
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10822-015-9867-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan G. Krimmer, Gerhard Klebe

Abstract

For a conscientious interpretation of thermodynamic parameters (Gibbs free energy, enthalpy and entropy) obtained by isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC), it is necessary to first evaluate the experimental setup and conditions at which the data were measured. The data quality must be assessed and the precision and accuracy of the measured parameters must be estimated. This information provides the basis at which level discussion of the data is appropriate, and allows insight into the significance of comparisons with other data. The aim of this article is to provide the reader with basic understanding of the ITC technique and the experimental practices commonly applied, in order to foster an appreciation for how much measured thermodynamic parameters can deviate from ideal, error-free values. Particular attention is paid to the shape of the recorded isotherm (c-value), the influence of the applied buffer used for the reaction (protonation reactions, pH), the chosen experimental settings (temperature), impurities of protein and ligand, sources of systematic errors (solution concentration, solution activity, and device calibration) and to the applied analysis software. Furthermore, we comment on enthalpy-entropy compensation, heat capacities and van't Hoff enthalpies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 98 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 28%
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 30 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 30 29%
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 28 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,723,696
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#817
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,431
of 268,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 268,446 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.