ArticlePloS one2015
Biomathematical description of synthetic peptide libraries.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining selection dynamics and limitations in multi-round protein selection of high diversity libraries.Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS · 2026Article
- On the origin of non-specific binders isolated in the selection of phage display peptide libraries.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Cell-Free Biosynthesis to Evaluate Lasso Peptide Formation and Enzyme-Substrate Tolerance.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2021Article
- Optimization of design and production strategies for novel adeno-associated viral display peptide libraries.Gene therapy · 2017Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Libraries of randomised peptides displayed on phages or viral particles are essential tools in a wide spectrum of applications. However, there is only limited understanding of a library's fundamental dynamics and the influences of encoding schemes and sizes on their quality. Numeric properties of libraries, such as the expected number of different peptides and the library's coverage, have long been in use as measures of a library's quality. Here, we present a graphical framework of these measures together with a library's relative efficiency to help to describe libraries in enough detail for researchers to plan new experiments in a more informed manner. In particular, these values allow us to answer-in a probabilistic fashion-the question of whether a specific library does indeed contain one of the "best" possible peptides. The framework is implemented in a web-interface based on two packages, discreteRV and peptider, to the statistical software environment R. We further provide a user-friendly web-interface called PeLiCa (Peptide Library Calculator, http://www.pelica.org), allowing scientists to plan and analyse their peptide libraries.
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.