Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12824481›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2003

SiteLight: binding-site prediction using phage display libraries.

Inbal Halperin, Haim Wolfson, Ruth Nussinov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Generating FN3-Based Affinity Reagents Through Phage Display.Current protocols in chemical biology · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Bioinformatics resources and tools for conformational B-cell epitope prediction.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2013
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. MimoDB 2.0: a mimotope database and beyond.Nucleic acids research · 2012
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Bioinformatics resources and tools for phage display.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2011
    Review
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

3 authors.

Inbal HalperinSackler Institute of Molecular Medicine, Department of Human Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel.
Haim Wolfson
Ruth Nussinov

Funding

SEA Influenza Clinical Research NetworkN01CO12400 · NCI · LEIDOS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, INC. · 2007 to 2008
$225.2M
Biomolecular Recognition and Binding MechanismsZ01BC010441 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI NUSSINOV, RUTH · 2002 to 2008
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS N01 CO012400NCI NIH HHS N01 CO 12400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phage display enables the presentation of a large number of peptides on the surface of phage particles. Such libraries can be tested for binding to target molecules of interest by means of affinity selection. Here we present SiteLight, a novel computational tool for binding site prediction using phage display libraries. SiteLight is an algorithm that maps the 1D peptide library onto a three-dimensional (3D) protein surface. It is applicable to complexes made up of a protein Template and any type of molecule termed Target. Given the three-dimensional structure of a Template and a collection of sequences derived from biopanning against the Target, the Template interaction site with the Target is predicted. We have created a large diverse data set for assessing the ability of SiteLight to correctly predict binding sites. SiteLight predictive mapping enables discrimination between the binding and nonbinding parts of the surface. This prediction can be used to effectively reduce the surface by 75% without excluding the binding site. In 63% of the cases we have tested, there is at least one binding site prediction that overlaps the interface by at least 50%. These results suggest the applicability of phage display libraries for automated binding site prediction on three-dimensional structures. For most effective binding site prediction we propose using a random phage display library twice, to scan both binding partners of a given complex. The derived peptides are mapped to the other binding partner (now used as a Template). Here, the surface of each partner is reduced by 75%, focusing their relative positions with respect to each other significantly. Such information can be utilized to improve docking algorithms and scoring functions.

Indexed as

Peptide LibraryAlgorithmsAnimalsBacteriophagesBinding SitesCarrier ProteinsCombinatorial Chemistry TechniquesDatabases, ProteinDNA-Binding ProteinsHSC70 Heat-Shock ProteinsHSP70 Heat-Shock ProteinsHumansPeptide FragmentsProtein ConformationProteinsRecombinant Fusion ProteinsBCL2-associated athanogene 1 proteinCarrier ProteinsDNA-Binding ProteinsHSC70 Heat-Shock ProteinsHSP70 Heat-Shock ProteinsHSPA8 protein, humanPeptide FragmentsPeptide LibraryProteinsRecombinant Fusion ProteinsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID12824481
PMCPMC2323941

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.