Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21682538›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of chemical physics2011

Reexamining protein-protein and protein-solvent interactions from Kirkwood-Buff analysis of light scattering in multi-component solutions.

Marco A Blanco, Erinc Sahin, Yi Li, Christopher J Roberts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of chemical physics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Quantifying Protein-Protein Interactions in Molecular Simulations.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marco A BlancoDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Center for Molecular and Engineering Thermodynamics, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA.
Erinc Sahin
Yi Li
Christopher J Roberts

Funding

Biotechnology Research Partnerships Renewal: Aggregation of Therapeutic ProteinsR01EB006006 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI RANDOLPH, THEODORE W · 2006 to 2017
$7.2M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB006006NIBIB NIH HHS R01EB006006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The classic analysis of Rayleigh light scattering (LS) is re-examined for multi-component protein solutions, within the context of Kirkwood-Buff (KB) theory as well as a more generalized canonical treatment. Significant differences arise when traditional treatments that approximate constant pressure and neglect concentration fluctuations in one or more (co)solvent/co-solute species are compared with more rigorous treatments at constant volume and with all species free to fluctuate. For dilute solutions, it is shown that LS can be used to rigorously and unambiguously obtain values for the osmotic second virial coefficient (B(22)), in contrast with recent arguments regarding protein interactions deduced from LS experiments. For more concentrated solutions, it is shown that conventional analysis over(under)-estimates the magnitude of B(22) for significantly repulsive(attractive) conditions, and that protein-protein KB integrals (G(22)) are the more relevant quantity obtainable from LS. Published data for α-chymotrypsinogen A and a series of monoclonal antibodies at different pH and salt concentrations are re-analyzed using traditional and new treatments. The results illustrate that while traditional analysis may be sufficient if one is interested in only the sign of B(22) or G(22), the quantitative values can be significantly in error. A simple approach is illustrated for determining whether protein concentration (c(2)) is sufficiently dilute for B(22) to apply, and for correcting B(22) values from traditional LS regression at higher c(2) values. The apparent molecular weight M(2, app) obtained from LS is shown to generally not be equal to the true molecular weight, with the differences arising from a combination of protein-solute and protein-cosolute interactions that may, in principle, also be determined from LS.

Indexed as

LightProtein BindingProteinsScattering, RadiationSolutionsSolventsThermodynamicsProteinsSolutionsSolvents

Identifiers

PMID21682538
PMCPMC3133569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.