Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20020040›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

Next-generation phage display: integrating and comparing available molecular tools to enable cost-effective high-throughput analysis.

Emmanuel Dias-Neto, Diana N Nunes, Ricardo J Giordano, Jessica Sun, Gregory H Botz, Kuan Yang, João C Setubal, Renata Pasqualini, Wadih Arap

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 154 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Phage Display as a Promising Platform for Peptide Drug Discovery.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The history and conceptual framework of assays and screens.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Phage Display to Augment Biomaterial Function.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emmanuel Dias-NetoDavid H. Koch Center, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Diana N Nunes
Ricardo J Giordano
Jessica Sun
Gregory H Botz
Kuan Yang
João C Setubal
Renata Pasqualini
Wadih Arap
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USVirginia Tech · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombinatorial phage display has been used in the last 20 years in the identification of protein-ligands and protein-protein interactions, uncovering relevant molecular recognition events. Rate-limiting steps of combinatorial phage display library selection are (i) the counting of transducing units and (ii) the sequencing of the encoded displayed ligands. Here, we adapted emerging genomic technologies to minimize such challenges. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe gained efficiency by applying in tandem real-time PCR for rapid quantification to enable bacteria-free phage display library screening, and added phage DNA next-generation sequencing for large-scale ligand analysis, reporting a fully integrated set of high-throughput quantitative and analytical tools. The approach is far less labor-intensive and allows rigorous quantification; for medical applications, including selections in patients, it also represents an advance for quantitative distribution analysis and ligand identification of hundreds of thousands of targeted particles from patient-derived biopsy or autopsy in a longer timeframe post library administration. Additional advantages over current methods include increased sensitivity, less variability, enhanced linearity, scalability, and accuracy at much lower cost. Sequences obtained by qPhage plus pyrosequencing were similar to a dataset produced from conventional Sanger-sequenced transducing-units (TU), with no biases due to GC content, codon usage, and amino acid or peptide frequency. These tools allow phage display selection and ligand analysis at >1,000-fold faster rate, and reduce costs approximately 250-fold for generating 10(6) ligand sequences. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our analyses demonstrates that whereas this approach correlates with the traditional colony-counting, it is also capable of a much larger sampling, allowing a faster, less expensive, more accurate and consistent analysis of phage enrichment. Overall, qPhage plus pyrosequencing is superior to TU-counting plus Sanger sequencing and is proposed as the method of choice over a broad range of phage display applications in vitro, in cells, and in vivo.

Indexed as

Peptide LibraryBacteriophagesCost-Benefit AnalysisDatabases, Nucleic AcidDNAHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansPeptidesSequence Analysis, DNATime FactorsTransduction, GeneticVirus InternalizationDNAPeptide LibraryPeptides

Identifiers

PMID20020040
PMCPMC2791209
OpenAlexW2071070346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.