↓ Skip to main content

Quantification of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: A Problem Not Fully Appreciated

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Quantification of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: A Problem Not Fully Appreciated
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmolb.2018.00083
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Contreras-Martos, Hung H. Nguyen, Phuong N. Nguyen, Nevena Hristozova, Mauricio Macossay-Castillo, Denes Kovacs, Angela Bekesi, Jesper S. Oemig, Dominique Maes, Kris Pauwels, Peter Tompa, Pierre Lebrun

Abstract

Protein quantification is essential in a great variety of biochemical assays, yet the inherent systematic errors associated with the concentration determination of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) using classical methods are hardly appreciated. Routinely used assays for protein quantification, such as the Bradford assay or ultraviolet absorbance at 280 nm, usually seriously misestimate the concentrations of IDPs due to their distinct and variable amino acid composition. Therefore, dependable method(s) have to be worked out/adopted for this task. By comparison to elemental analysis as the gold standard, we show through the example of four globular proteins and nine IDPs that the ninhydrin assay and the commercial QubitTM Protein Assay provide reliable data on IDP quantity. However, as IDPs can show extreme variation in amino acid composition and physical features not necessarily covered by our examples, even these techniques should only be used for IDPs following standardization. The far-reaching implications of these simple observations are demonstrated through two examples: (i) circular dichroism spectrum deconvolution, and (ii) receptor-ligand affinity determination. These actual comparative examples illustrate the potential errors that can be incorporated into the biophysical parameters of IDPs, due to systematic misestimation of their concentration. This leads to inaccurate description of IDP functions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 19%
Student > Bachelor 21 17%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 3%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 42 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 13%
Chemistry 11 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 47 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,724,121
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
#428
of 3,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,617
of 335,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,913 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 335,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 63% of its contemporaries.