Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9826625›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal1998

Salt-dependent DNA superhelix diameter studied by small angle neutron scattering measurements and Monte Carlo simulations.

M Hammermann, N Brun, K V Klenin, R May, K Tóth, J Langowski

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 1998. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Polymer chain models of DNA and chromatin.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2006
    Article
  11. Cyclization of short DNA fragments and bending fluctuations of the double helix.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2005
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

M HammermannBiophysics of Macromolecules Division, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
N Brun
K V Klenin
R May
K Tóth
J Langowski
German Cancer Research Center · DECEA Grenoble · FRGenomics (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using small angle neutron scattering we have measured the static form factor of two different superhelical DNAs, p1868 (1868 bp) and pUC18 (2686 bp), in dilute aqueous solution at salt concentrations between 0 and 1.5 M Na+ in 10 mM Tris at 0% and 100% D2O. For both DNA molecules, the theoretical static form factor was also calculated from an ensemble of Monte Carlo configurations generated by a previously described model. Simulated and measured form factors of both DNAs showed the same behavior between 10 and 100 mM salt concentration: An undulation in the scattering curve at a momentum transfer q = 0.5 nm-1 present at lower concentration disappears above 100 mM. The position of the undulation corresponds to a distance of approximately 10-20 nm. This indicated a change in the DNA superhelix diameter, as the undulation is not present in the scattering curve of the relaxed DNA. From the measured scattering curves of superhelical DNA we estimated the superhelix diameter as a function of Na+ concentration by a quantitative comparison with the scattering curve of relaxed DNA. The ratio of the scattering curves of superhelical and relaxed DNA is very similar to the form factor of a pair of point scatterers. We concluded that the distance of this pair corresponds to the interstrand separation in the superhelix. The computed superhelix diameter of 16.0 +/- 0.9 nm at 10 mM decreased to 9.0 +/- 0.7 nm at 100 mM salt concentration. Measured and simulated scattering curves agreed almost quantitatively, therefore we also calculated the superhelix diameter from the simulated conformations. It decreased from 18.0 +/- 1.5 nm at 10 mM to 9.4 +/- 1.5 nm at 100 mM salt concentration. This value did not significantly change to lower values at higher Na+ concentration, in agreement with results obtained by electron microscopy, scanning force microscopy imaging in aqueous solution, and recent MC simulations, but in contrast to the observation of a lateral collapse of the DNA superhelix as indicated by cryo-electron microscopy studies.

Indexed as

Biophysical PhenomenaBiophysicsDNA, SuperhelicalEscherichia coliModels, ChemicalMonte Carlo MethodNeutronsNucleic Acid ConformationPlasmidsScattering, RadiationSodium ChlorideDNA, SuperhelicalSodium Chloride

Identifiers

PMID9826625
PMCPMC1299976
OpenAlexW2127876355

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.