Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26089768›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied crystallography2015

David W Wright, Stephen J Perkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied crystallography, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Journal of applied crystallography · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

2 authors.

David W WrightDepartment of Structural and Molecular Biology, Division of Biosciences, University College London , Darwin Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Stephen J PerkinsDepartment of Structural and Molecular Biology, Division of Biosciences, University College London , Darwin Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Small-angle X-ray and neutron scattering techniques characterize proteins in solution and complement high-resolution structural studies. They are of particular utility when large proteins cannot be crystallized or when the structure is altered by solution conditions. Atomistic models of the averaged structure can be generated through constrained modelling, a technique in which known domain or subunit structures are combined with linker models to produce candidate global conformations. By randomizing the configuration adopted by the different elements of the model, thousands of candidate structures are produced. Next, theoretical scattering curves are generated for each model for trial-and-error fits to the experimental data. From these, a small family of best-fit models is identified. In order to facilitate both the computation of theoretical scattering curves from atomistic models and their comparison with experiment, the

Indexed as

analytical ultracentrifugationconstrained modellinghydration shellsneutron scatteringX-ray scattering

Identifiers

PMID26089768
PMCPMC4453981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.