Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28510011›Full record

ReviewBiophysical reviews2016

Dynamic light scattering: a practical guide and applications in biomedical sciences.

Jörg Stetefeld, Sean A McKenna, Trushar R Patel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biophysical reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 633 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
633citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

633 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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. Effective Solvent-Engineered All-Inorganic CsPbIAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

573 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Jörg StetefeldDepartment of Chemistry, University of Manitoba, 144 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada. jorg.stetefeld@ad.umanitoba.ca.
Sean A McKennaDepartment of Chemistry, University of Manitoba, 144 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada.
Trushar R PatelSchool of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. trushar.patel@uleth.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dynamic light scattering (DLS), also known as photon correlation spectroscopy (PCS), is a very powerful tool for studying the diffusion behaviour of macromolecules in solution. The diffusion coefficient, and hence the hydrodynamic radii calculated from it, depends on the size and shape of macromolecules. In this review, we provide evidence of the usefulness of DLS to study the homogeneity of proteins, nucleic acids, and complexes of protein-protein or protein-nucleic acid preparations, as well as to study protein-small molecule interactions. Further, we provide examples of DLS's application both as a complementary method to analytical ultracentrifugation studies and as a screening tool to validate solution scattering models using determined hydrodynamic radii.

Indexed as

Analytical ultracentrifugeDiffusion coefficientDynamic light scatteringHydrodynamic radiusLight scatteringProtein–ligand interactionsProtein–nucleic acid complexesProtein–protein complexes

Identifiers

PMID28510011
PMCPMC5425802

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.