ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2020
In Vitro Assays: Friends or Foes of Cell-Penetrating Peptides.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Late-Stage Minimal Labeling of Peptides and Proteins for Real-Time Imaging of Cellular Trafficking.ACS central science · 2025Article
- Recent advances in methods for quantifying the cell penetration of macromolecules.Current opinion in chemical biology · 2024Review
- Discovery of a new class of cell-penetrating peptides by novel phage display platform.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cell-Penetrating and Enzyme-Responsive Peptides for Targeted Cancer Therapy: Role of Arginine Residue Length on Cell Penetration and In Vivo Systemic Toxicity.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial and Cell-Penetrating Peptides: Understanding Penetration for the Design of Novel Conjugate Antibiotics.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Redesigning of Cell-Penetrating Peptides to Improve Their Efficacy as a Drug Delivery System.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Design of Membrane Active Peptides Considering Multi-Objective Optimization for Biomedical Application.Membranes · 2022Review
- Cell penetrating peptide: A potent delivery system in vaccine development.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Therapeutic Advances in Diabetes, Autoimmune, and Neurological Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Identification of efficient prokaryotic cell-penetrating peptides with applications in bacterial biotechnology.Communications biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cell membrane is a complex and highly regulated system that is composed of lipid bilayer and proteins. One of the main functions of the cell membrane is the regulation of cell entry. Cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) are defined as peptides that can cross the plasma membrane and deliver their cargo inside the cell. The uptake of a peptide is determined by its sequence and biophysicochemical properties. At the same time, the uptake mechanism and efficiency are shown to be dependent on local peptide concentration, cell membrane lipid composition, characteristics of the cargo, and experimental methodology, suggesting that a highly efficient CPP in one system might not be as productive in another. To better understand the dependence of CPPs on the experimental system, we present a review of the in vitro assays that have been employed in the literature to evaluate CPPs and CPP-cargos. Our comprehensive review suggests that utilization of orthogonal assays will be more effective for deciphering the true ability of CPPs to translocate through the membrane and enter the cell cytoplasm.
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.