ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2018
Rapid and low-cost multiplex synthesis of chemokine analogs.
Article in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in the chemical synthesis of human proteoforms.Science China. Life sciences · 2025Review
- Noncanonical roles of chemokine regions in CCR9 activation revealed by structural modeling and mutational mapping.Nature communications · 2025Article
- In-Plate Chemical Synthesis of Isopeptide-Linked SUMOylated Peptide Fluorescence Polarization Reagents for High-Throughput Screening of SENP Preferences.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2023Article
- Structural basis of the activation of the CC chemokine receptor 5 by a chemokine agonist.Science advances · 2021Article
- Chemoenzymatic Semisynthesis of Proteins.Chemical reviews · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peptides represent a promising source of new medicines, but improved technologies are needed to facilitate discovery and optimization campaigns. In particular, longer peptides with multiple disulfide bridges are challenging to produce, and producing large numbers of structurally related variants is dissuasively costly and time-consuming. The principal cost and time drivers are the multiple column chromatography purification steps that are used during the multistep chemical synthesis procedure, which involves both ligation and oxidative refolding steps. In this study, we developed a method for multiplex parallel synthesis of complex peptide analogs in which the structurally variant region of the molecule is produced as a small peptide on a 384-well synthesizer with subsequent ligation to the longer, structurally invariant region and oxidative refolding carried out in-well without any column purification steps. To test the method, we used a panel of 96 analogs of the chemokine RANTES (regulated on activation normal T cell expressed and secreted)/CCL5 (69 residues, two disulfide bridges), which had been synthesized using standard approaches and characterized pharmacologically in an earlier study. Although, as expected, the multiplex method generated chemokine analogs of lower purity than those produced in the original study, it was nonetheless possible to closely match the pharmacological attributes (anti-HIV potency, capacity to elicit G protein signaling, and capacity to elicit intracellular receptor sequestration) of each chemokine analog to reference data from the earlier study. This rapid, low-cost approach has the potential to support discovery and optimization campaigns based on analogs of other chemokines as well as those of other complex peptide and small protein targets of a similar size.
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.