ArticleJournal of biological physics2014
Dynamics of lysozyme and its hydration water under an electric field.
Article in Journal of biological physics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Electric Field on α-Synuclein Fibrils: Revealed by Molecular Dynamics Simulations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Adsorption of soft and hard proteins onto OTCEs under the influence of an external electric field.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of a static electric field on the dynamics of lysozyme and its hydration water are investigated by means of incoherent quasi-elastic neutron scattering (QENS). Measurements were performed on lysozyme samples, hydrated respectively with heavy water (D2O) to capture the protein dynamics and with light water (H2O), to probe the dynamics of the hydration shell, in the temperature range from 210 < T < 260 K. The hydration fraction in both cases was about ∼ 0.38 gram of water per gram of dry protein. The field strengths investigated were respectively 0 kV/mm and 2 kV/mm (~2 × 10(6) V/m) for the protein hydrated with D2O and 0 kV and 1 kV/mm for the H2O-hydrated counterpart. While the overall internal protons dynamics of the protein appears to be unaffected by the application of an electric field up to 2 kV/mm, likely due to the stronger intra-molecular interactions, there is also no appreciable quantitative enhancement of the diffusive dynamics of the hydration water, as would be anticipated based on our recent observations in water confined in silica pores under field values of 2.5 kV/mm. This may be due to the difference in surface interactions between water and the two adsorption hosts (silica and protein), or to the existence of a critical threshold field value Ec ~2-3 kV/mm for increased molecular diffusion, for which electrical breakdown is a limitation for our sample.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.