ReviewBiopolymers2016
A current perspective on applications of macrocyclic-peptide-based high-affinity ligands.
Review in Biopolymers, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A hybrid evolutionary and structural method for AI-guided peptide inhibitor design using AlphaFold and Rosetta.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Diversity Scale of Library Matters: Impact of mRNA Library Diversity Scales on the Discovery of Macrocyclic Peptides Targeting a Protein by the RaPID System.ACS central science · 2025Article
- Anti-cancer therapeutic strategies based on HGF/MET, EpCAM, and tumor-stromal cross talk.Cancer cell international · 2022Review
- Mammalian Expression andACS omega · 2020Article
- Computational prediction of plasma protein binding of cyclic peptides from small molecule experimental data using sparse modeling techniques.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Generation of a long-acting fusion inhibitor against HIV-1.MedChemComm · 2018Article
- Review
- Progress in the Correlative Atomic Force Microscopy and Optical Microscopy.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monoclonal antibodies can bind with high affinity and high selectivity to their targets. As a tool in therapeutics or diagnostics, however, their large size (∼150 kDa) reduces penetration into tissue and prevents passive cellular uptake. To overcome these and other problems, minimized protein scaffolds have been chosen or engineered, with care taken to not compromise binding affinity or specificity. An alternate approach is to begin with a minimal non-antibody scaffold and select functional ligands from a de novo library. We will discuss the structure, production, applications, strengths, and weaknesses of several classes of antibody-derived ligands, that is, antibodies, intrabodies, and nanobodies, and nonantibody-derived ligands, that is, monobodies, affibodies, and macrocyclic peptides. In particular, this review is focussed on macrocyclic peptides produced by the Random non-standard Peptides Integrated Discovery (RaPID) system that are small in size (typically ∼2 kDa), but are able to perform tasks typically handled by larger proteinaceous ligands.
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.