Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29380276›Full record

ReviewBiophysical reviews2018

Allowance for boundary sharpening in the determination of diffusion coefficients by sedimentation velocity: a historical perspective.

Donald J Winzor, David J Scott

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biophysical reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 48% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Donald J WinzorSchool of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, 4072, Australia. d.winzor@uq.edu.au.
David J ScottSchool of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK.
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory · GBUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

Science and Technology Facilities (UK) stjm01342
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review summarizes endeavors undertaken in the middle of last century to employ the Lamm equation for quantitative analysis of boundary spreading in sedimentation velocity experiments on globular proteins, thereby illustrating the ingenuity required to achieve that goal in an era when an approximate analytical solution of that nonlinear differential equation of second order provided the only means for its application. Application of procedures based on that approximate solution to simulated sedimentation velocity distributions has revealed a slight disparity (about 3%) between returned and input values of the diffusion coefficient-a discrepancy comparable with that of estimates obtained by current simulative analyses based on numerical solution of the Lamm equation. Although the massive technological developments in the gathering and treatment of sedimentation velocity data over the past three to four decades have changed dramatically the manner in which boundary spreading is analyzed, they have not led to any significant improvement in the accuracy of the diffusion coefficient thereby deduced.

Indexed as

Analytical centrifugationBoundary spreadingConcentration dependenceDiffusion coefficientSedimentation coefficientSedimentation velocity

Identifiers

PMID29380276
PMCPMC5803177
OpenAlexW2787669630

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.