ArticlePloS one2016
Beyond Helper Phage: Using "Helper Cells" to Select Peptide Affinity Ligands.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction of an Enhanced Phage Display Library of Artificially Randomized vNARs from Cloudy Catshark (Scyliorhinus Torazame) and Screening against Miamiensis Avidus.Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Structural and molecular basis of PCNA-activated FAN1 nuclease function in DNA repair.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A synthetic heavy chain variable domain antibody library (VHL) provides highly functional antibodies with favorable developability.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025Article
- Healthy humans can be a source of antibodies countering COVID-19.Bioengineered · 2022Article
- Development of Anti-ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2020Article
- Selection of phage-displayed accessible recombinant targeted antibodies (SPARTA): methodology and applications.JCI insight · 2018Article
- Naïve Human Antibody Libraries for Infectious Diseases.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peptides are important affinity ligands for microscopy, biosensing, and targeted delivery. However, because they can have low affinity for their targets, their selection from large naïve libraries can be challenging. When selecting peptidic ligands from display libraries, it is important to: 1) ensure efficient display; 2) maximize the ability to select high affinity ligands; and 3) minimize the effect of the display context on binding. The "helper cell" packaging system has been described as a tool to produce filamentous phage particles based on phagemid constructs with varying display levels, while remaining free of helper phage contamination. Here we report on the first use of this system for peptide display, including the systematic characterization and optimization of helper cells, their inefficient use in antibody display and their use in creating and selecting from a set of phage display peptide libraries. Our libraries were analyzed with unprecedented precision by standard or deep sequencing, and shown to be superior in quality than commercial gold standards. Using our helper cell libraries, we have obtained ligands recognizing Yersinia pestis surface antigen F1V and L-glutamine-binding periplasmic protein QBP. In the latter case, unlike any of the peptide library selections described so far, we used a combination of phage and yeast display to select intriguing peptide ligands. Based on the success of our selections we believe that peptide libraries obtained with helper cells are not only suitable, but preferable to traditional phage display libraries for selection of peptidic 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.