ArticleMagnetic resonance in chemistry : MRC2026
Pulse Programme Considerations for Quantitative NOE Analysis.
Article in Magnetic resonance in chemistry : MRC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate NOE/ROE-based distance determination is a crucial tool in stereochemistry and conformational analysis of both protein and small molecule structure elucidation. Despite being widely used in countless fields of chemistry and biology, the factors determining the accuracy of the obtained distances are sometimes neglected. Herein, we present the systematic analysis of the performance of six commonly used NOESY and ROESY pulse programmes for quantitative NOE/ROE analysis, evaluating the quality of the data based on the number of quantifiable correlations and the accuracy of the corresponding NOE-derived interproton distances. The effect of two solvent suppression schemes on the NOE/ROE quantitativity is assessed. We found that the total number of quantifiable correlations and the errors of the derived distances depend on the pulse programme used, and the error increases drastically when two or more spectra are removed from the build-up curves for the generation of NOE/ROE build-up rates, using the initial-rate approximation. Solvent suppression using excitation sculpting results in the underestimation of the NOE-derived distances. EASY ROESY run without solvent suppression shows a bias towards overestimated NOE-derived distances. The obtained data suggest that the determination of quantitative interproton distances necessitates the careful selection of pulse programme.
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.