| ²é¿´: 386 | »Ø¸´: 0 | |||
lixiangrong1Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[ÇóÖú]
ÈÈÁ¦Ñ§²ÎÊý
|
|
¸÷λÈÈÁ¦Ñ§µÄר¼Ò£º ÎÒµÄһƪÎÄÕ´óÐÞ£¬ÆäÖÐÓиöÄÚÈÝÊÇ£ºÍ¨¹ýìØºÍìʵÄÕý¸ºµÃµ½´ó·Ö×ÓºÍÒ©ÎïµÄ·Ç¹²¼Û×÷ÓÃÁ¦µÄÀàÐ͵ĽáÂÛ£¬µ«ÊÇÉó¸åÈËÌá³öÏÂÃæµÄÒâ¼û¡°This sentence is from my opinion not justified. While thermodynamic measurements are a valid tool to characterise a binding interface in terms of driving forces and for a STRUCTURALLY CHARACTERISED and DEFINED binding interface also to infer the molecular determinants of the interaction, the argument does not work the other way round: thermodynamic measurements alone do, in general, not permit the speculation about the molecular nature of the binding interface. Indeed one could envision a system in which the for example mixing enthalpy and entropy alone contribute to the thermodynamic parameters and hence a thermodynamic measurement might be made in the absence of any binding. Here the mixing enthalpy and entropy might not contribute since the authors measure the steady state fluorescence, but "other" thermodynamic contributors should not be overlooked.¡± ÎÒ²»ÊÇÌ«Ã÷°×ÊÇʲôÒâ˼¡£ÊDz»ÊÇ˵ÎÒ²»Äܹ»Í¨¹ýìØºÍìʵÄÕý¸ºÀ´ÅжϷǹ²¼Û×÷ÓÃÁ¦µÄÀàÐÍ£¿Ð»Ð»£¡ |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
Î人·ÄÖ¯´óѧÕÐÉúÎï²ÄÁÏ¡¢»¯Ñ§¡¢¸ß·Ö×ÓÏà¹Ø×¨ÒµË¶Ê¿Éú-ÁíÓÐÉÙÁ¿Ê¿±ø¼Æ»®¿É×Éѯ
ÒѾÓÐ0È˻ظ´
[Î人·ÄÖ¯´óѧ]²ÄÁÏѧԺ[½ªÎ°ÍŶÓÃû³Æ]¿ÎÌâ×é-2026Äê˶ʿÑо¿Éúµ÷¼ÁÐÅÏ¢
ÒѾÓÐ0È˻ظ´
Óлú¸ß·Ö×Ó²ÄÁÏÂÛÎÄÈóÉ«/·ÒëÔõôÊÕ·Ñ?
ÒѾÓÐ237È˻ظ´
Öйú¿ÆÑ§Ôº¡¤¹ý³Ì¹¤³ÌÑо¿Ëù¡¤ÕÐÆ¸º£ÄÚÍâ¸ß²ã´ÎÈ˲Å---¹ý³ÌËù¡°°ÙÈ˼ƻ®¡±
ÒѾÓÐ1È˻ظ´
Öйú¿ÆÑ§Ôº¡¤¹ý³Ì¹¤³ÌÑо¿Ëù¡¤ÕÐÆ¸º£ÄÚÍâ¸ß²ã´ÎÈ˲Å---¹ý³ÌËù¡°°ÙÈ˼ƻ®¡±
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
2026¿¼²©×Ô¼ö
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
ÎÂÃôË®Äý½ºÊÕËõ
ÒѾÓÐ0È˻ظ´
PDMSĤÔÚÈÜÒºÖеÄÀë×Ó͸¹ýÂÊ
ÒѾÓÐ0È˻ظ´
ÔÜÈËÆ· ÂÛÎÄÆí¸£
ÒѾÓÐ139È˻ظ´
science advancesµÄAAASϵͳÉÏ·µÐÞ
ÒѾÓÐ0È˻ظ´
science advancesµÄAAASϵͳÉÏ·µÐÞÎÊÌâ
ÒѾÓÐ2È˻ظ´









»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥
ͶƱ: