↓ Skip to main content

Binding of cyclic carboxylates to octa-acid deep-cavity cavitand

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
28 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.
Title
Binding of cyclic carboxylates to octa-acid deep-cavity cavitand
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10822-013-9690-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Corinne L. D. Gibb, Bruce C. Gibb

Abstract

As part of the fourth statistical assessment of modeling of proteins and ligands (sampl.eyesopen.com) prediction challenge, the strength of association of nine guests (1-9) binding to octa-acid host was determined by a combination of (1)H NMR and isothermal titration calorimetry. Association constants in sodium tetraborate buffered (pH 9.2) aqueous solution ranged from 5.39 × 10(2) M(-1) in the case of benzoate 1, up to 3.82 × 10(5) M(-1) for trans-4-methylcyclohexanoate 7. Overall, the free energy difference between the free energies of complexation of these weakest and strongest binding guests was ΔΔG° = 3.88 kcal mol(-1). Based on a multitude of previous studies, the anticipated order of strength of binding was close to that which was actually obtained. However, the binding of guest 3 (4-ethylbenzoate) was considerably stronger than initially estimated.

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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 36%
Researcher 7 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 18 64%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,639,951
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#207
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,159
of 224,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 224,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.