| Title |
A threading receptor for polysaccharides
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Chemistry, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nchem.2395 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tiddo J. Mooibroek, Juan M. Casas-Solvas, Robert L. Harniman, Charles M. Renney, Tom S. Carter, Matthew P. Crump, Anthony P. Davis |
| Abstract |
Cellulose, chitin and related polysaccharides are key renewable sources of organic molecules and materials. However, poor solubility tends to hamper their exploitation. Synthetic receptors could aid dissolution provided they are capable of cooperative action, for example by multiple threading on a single polysaccharide molecule. Here we report a synthetic receptor designed to form threaded complexes (polypseudorotaxanes) with these natural polymers. The receptor binds fragments of the polysaccharides in aqueous solution with high affinities (Ka up to 19,000 M(-1)), and is shown-by nuclear Overhauser effect spectroscopy-to adopt the threading geometry. Evidence from induced circular dichroism and atomic force microscopy implies that the receptor also forms polypseudorotaxanes with cellulose and its polycationic analogue chitosan. The results hold promise for polysaccharide solubilization under mild conditions, as well as for new approaches to the design of biologically active molecules. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| Central African Republic | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 12 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 8 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 26% |
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 53 | 60% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,649,958
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Nature Chemistry
#1,765
of 3,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,871
of 386,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Chemistry
#39
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.