English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Liu et al. (1) alleged that they could not repeat our work on the protein BBL (Protein Data Bank ID code 1W4H) at the most basic level. Campos and Muñoz now admit (2), as we explained (3), that they used a phosphate buffer that greatly changed pH during the guanidinium chloride (GdmCl) titration relative to our Mops buffer. They can now repeat our work. However, the authors now claim (2), misleadingly, that the amine buffer Mops is inferior to phosphate in GdmCl titrations and that we miscalculated the effects of GdmCl on glass-electrode pH readings (4) (Fig. 1). The primary role of a buffer under conditions that can change the pKa of a reagent is to maintain the ionization state of that reagent with changing conditions, which may be very different from the role of maintaining “true” pH. Addition of salt affects amine, carboxylate, and phosphate buffers very differently. At low ionic strengths, as known experimentally and by the Debye–Hückel equation, the pH of amine buffers is unaffected by increasing salt concentrations, the pH of carboxylate buffers drops slightly, and the pH of …

Reply to Campos and Muñoz: Why phosphate is a bad buffer for guanidinium chloride titrations