Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22116035›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance (San Diego, Calif. : 1997)2012

A comparison of NCO and NCA transfer methods for biological solid-state NMR spectroscopy.

Nikolaus M Loening, Morten Bjerring, Niels Chr Nielsen, Hartmut Oschkinat

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance (San Diego, Calif. : 1997), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Optimal control of spin systems.Science advances · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. High-efficiency low-powerJournal of magnetic resonance (San Diego, Calif. : 1997) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Solid-state NMR studies of metal-free SOD1 fibrillar structures.Journal of biological inorganic chemistry : JBIC : a publication of the Society of Biological Inorganic Chemistry · 2014
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Nikolaus M LoeningDepartment of Chemistry, Lewis & Clark College, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Road, Portland, OR 97219, USA. loening@lclark.edu
Morten Bjerring
Niels Chr Nielsen
Hartmut Oschkinat

Funding

Structural Studies and Char. of Neurotoxic Venom Peptides from Sicariidae SpidersR15GM085733 · NIGMS · LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE · PI LOENING, NIKOLAUS MARTIN · 2008 to 2012
$433k
NIGMS NIH HHS R15 GM085733NIGMS NIH HHS R15GM085733
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three different techniques (adiabatic passage Hartman-Hahn cross-polarization, optimal control designed pulses, and EXPORT) are compared for transferring (15)N magnetization to (13)C in solid-state NMR experiments under magic-angle-spinning conditions. We demonstrate that, in comparison to adiabatic passage Hartman-Hahn cross-polarization, optimal control transfer pulses achieve similar or better transfer efficiencies for uniformly-(13)C,(15)N labeled samples and are generally superior for samples with non-uniform labeling schemes (such as 1,3- and 2-(13)C glycerol labeling). In addition, the optimal control pulses typically use substantially lower average RF field strengths and are more robust with respect to experimental variation and RF inhomogeneity. Consequently, they are better suited for demanding samples.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiopolymersCarbon IsotopesMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyNitrogen IsotopesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityStaining and LabelingBiopolymersCarbon IsotopesNitrogen Isotopes

Identifiers

PMID22116035
PMCPMC3257381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.