↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Method Evaluations for Adsorption Free Energy Calculations at the Solid/Water Interface through Metadynamics, Umbrella Sampling, and Jarzynski's Equality
Published in
ChemPhysChem, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/cphc.201701241
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Considerable interest in characterizing the protein/peptide-surface interactions, has prompted extensive computational studies on calculations of adsorption free energy. However, in many cases, each individual study has focused on application of free energy calculations to a specific system, therefore, it is difficult to combine the results into a general picture for pre-choosing an appropriate strategy for the system of interest. In our present study, we systemically compared and evaluated three well-established computational algorithms to compute the adsorption free energy of small molecules on two representative surfaces. Our results clearly demonstrated that the characteristics of studied interfacial systems have crucial effects on the accuracy and efficiency of the adsorption free energy calculations. For the hydrophobic surface, steered molecular dynamics exhibits the highest efficiency, appearing to be a favorable method of choice for enhanced sampling simulations. However, for the charged surface, only the umbrella sampling method has the ability to accurately explore the adsorption free energy surface. The affinity of the water layer to the surface significantly affects the performance of free energy calculation methods, especially at the region close to the surface. Therefore, we attempt to propose a general principle of how to discriminate between methodological and sampling issues based on the interfacial characteristics of the system under investigation.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 14 31%
Engineering 6 13%
Physics and Astronomy 5 11%
Chemical Engineering 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,342,952
of 24,484,013 outputs
Outputs from ChemPhysChem
#1,402
of 5,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,410
of 454,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ChemPhysChem
#24
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,484,013 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,125 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 454,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.