ArticleBiotechnology journal2012
Porcine parvovirus removal using trimer and biased hexamer peptides.
Article in Biotechnology journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assuring the microbiological safety of biological therapeutics remains an important concern. Our group has recently reported small trimeric peptides that have the ability to bind and remove a model nonenveloped virus, porcine parvovirus (PPV), from complex solutions containing human blood plasma. In an effort to improve the removal efficiency of these small peptides, we created a biased library of hexamer peptides that contains two previously reported trimeric peptides designated WRW and KYY. This library was screened and several hexamer peptides were discovered that also removed PPV from solution, but there was no marked improvement in removal efficiency when compared to the trimeric peptides. Based on simulated docking experiments, it appeared that hexamer peptide binding is dictated more by secondary structure, whereas the binding of trimeric peptides is dominated by charge and hydrophobicity. This study demonstrates that trimeric and hexameric peptides may have different, matrix-specific roles to play in virus removal applications. In general, the hexamer ligand may perform better for binding of specific viruses, whereas the trimer ligand may have more broadly reactive virus-binding properties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.