2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2023.108915
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysis and modeling of SDS and DPC micelle SAXS data for membrane protein solution structure characterization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
19
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
4
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure also presents an oil-free control (triangles) of 4% SDS micelles in 0.5% NaCl brine. Figure S5 in the SI presents the ellipsoidal core–shell fit of the control system considering a headgroup shell thickness of 1.1 Å and an equatorial radius of 16.4 Å, which is smaller than SDS’s tail parameter L = 20 Å listed in Table , but it is close to the equatorial radius of 17.8 Å reported by Pozza and Bonneté obtained via Synchrotron SAXS . The same article reported a shell thickness of 4.85 Å, which was obtained considering a scattering length density (SLD) for the SDS headgroup of 13.28 × 10 –6 Å –2 , which is substantially smaller than the SLD = 22 × 10 –6 Å –2 used in this work for the sulfate headgroup.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Figure also presents an oil-free control (triangles) of 4% SDS micelles in 0.5% NaCl brine. Figure S5 in the SI presents the ellipsoidal core–shell fit of the control system considering a headgroup shell thickness of 1.1 Å and an equatorial radius of 16.4 Å, which is smaller than SDS’s tail parameter L = 20 Å listed in Table , but it is close to the equatorial radius of 17.8 Å reported by Pozza and Bonneté obtained via Synchrotron SAXS . The same article reported a shell thickness of 4.85 Å, which was obtained considering a scattering length density (SLD) for the SDS headgroup of 13.28 × 10 –6 Å –2 , which is substantially smaller than the SLD = 22 × 10 –6 Å –2 used in this work for the sulfate headgroup.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Figure S5 in the SI presents the ellipsoidal core−shell fit of the control system considering a headgroup shell thickness of 1.1 Å and an equatorial radius of 16.4 Å, which is smaller than SDS's tail parameter L = 20 Å listed in Table 1, but it is close to the equatorial radius of 17.8 Å reported by Pozza and Bonnetéobtained via Synchrotron SAXS. 31 The same article reported a shell thickness of 4.85 Å, The system is a Type I μE system produced with 0.5% NaCl. The control system is an oil-free (triangles) micellar system at 0.5% NaCl.…”
Section: Saxs-based Determination Of CC For Alkyl Sulfatementioning
confidence: 99%
“…, but it is close to the equatorial radius of 17.8 Å reported by Pozza and Bonneté obtained via Synchrotron SAXS29 . The same article reports a shell thickness of 4.85 Å, which was obtained considering a scattering length density https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-drq7n ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8186-1093 Content not peer-reviewed by ChemRxiv.…”
supporting
confidence: 88%
“…Figure 2a displays the PDF functions derived from the SAXS data measured/published on micelles made by three different types of monomers: the blue curve for PS20 [12], the red curve for DPC [13], and the green curve for VitE-TPGS [4]. Figure 2b shows the corresponding PDF first derivatives for the same three cases.…”
Section: 𝜀 𝑁 δ𝜌mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the following: (i) we discuss how to graphically estimate-from the PDF first derivative-the core and shell sizes of the micelle under study; (ii) we derive analytical equations useful both for determining the core-shell and shell-buffer electron density contrasts, starting from the core and shell sizes derived graphically; (iii) we apply the new proposed graphical-analytical approach, whose mathematical details are reported in Appendix A, to micelles formed by different surfactants that have been previously characterized, namely PS20 [12], DPC and SDS [13], and VitE-TPGS with and without a PSC [4]. This comparison with literature data helped us validate the new graphicalanalytical method and demonstrate its potentiality compared to the conventional approach based on the current SAXS/PDF simulation software [5][6][7][8][9][10].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%