| Title |
Improved validation of IDP ensembles by one-bond Cα–Hα scalar couplings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biomolecular NMR, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10858-015-9990-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vytautas Gapsys, Raghavendran L. Narayanan, ShengQi Xiang, Bert L. de Groot, Markus Zweckstetter |
| Abstract |
Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are best described by ensembles of conformations and a variety of approaches have been developed to determine IDP ensembles. Because of the large number of conformations, however, cross-validation of the determined ensembles by independent experimental data is crucial. The (1)JCαHα coupling constant is particularly suited for cross-validation, because it has a large magnitude and mostly depends on the often less accessible dihedral angle ψ. Here, we reinvestigated the connection between (1)JCαHα values and protein backbone dihedral angles. We show that accurate amino-acid specific random coil values of the (1)JCαHα coupling constant, in combination with a reparameterized empirical Karplus-type equation, allow for reliable cross-validation of molecular ensembles of IDPs. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 5 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
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 11 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,348,067
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomolecular NMR
#381
of 614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,529
of 275,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomolecular NMR
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 614 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 275,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.