Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27886568›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in structural biology2017

Deep sequencing methods for protein engineering and design.

Emily E Wrenbeck, Matthew S Faber, Timothy A Whitehead

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in structural biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Is Novelty Predictable?Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Emily E WrenbeckDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States.
Matthew S FaberDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States.
Timothy A WhiteheadDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States; Departments of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States. Electronic address: taw@egr.msu.edu.

Funding

Plant Biotechnology for Health and SustainabilityT32GM110523 · NIGMS · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LAST, ROBERT LOUIS · 2014 to 2023
$2.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM110523
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized protein science, and the development of complementary methods enabling NGS-driven protein engineering have followed. In general, these experiments address the functional consequences of thousands of protein variants in a massively parallel manner using genotype-phenotype linked high-throughput functional screens followed by DNA counting via deep sequencing. We highlight the use of information rich datasets to engineer protein molecular recognition. Examples include the creation of multiple dual-affinity Fabs targeting structurally dissimilar epitopes and engineering of a broad germline-targeted anti-HIV-1 immunogen. Additionally, we highlight the generation of enzyme fitness landscapes for conducting fundamental studies of protein behavior and evolution. We conclude with discussion of technological advances.

Indexed as

AnimalsEpitope MappingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansProtein EngineeringProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID27886568
PMCPMC5440218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.