ReviewThe Journal of biological chemistry
Linking molecular evolution to molecular grafting.
Review in The Journal of biological chemistry. 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.
- Advances in cyclotide research: bioactivity to cyclotide-based therapeutics.Molecular diversity · 2025Review
- Directing the oxidative folding of disulfide-rich peptides for enhanced engineering and applications.Chemical science · 2025Review
- Engineering Peptide Modulators for T-Cell Migration by Structural Scaffold Matching.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- Conformationally constrained cyclic grafted peptidomimetics targeting protein-protein interactions.Peptide science (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Native and Engineered Cyclic Disulfide-Rich Peptides as Drug Leads.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Molecular Peptide Grafting as a Tool to Create Novel Protein Therapeutics.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Designing receptor agonists with enhanced pharmacokinetics by grafting macrocyclic peptides into fragment crystallizable regions.Nature biomedical engineering · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular grafting is a strategy for the engineering of molecular scaffolds into new functional agents, such as next-generation therapeutics. Despite its wide use, studies so far have focused almost exclusively on demonstrating its utility rather than understanding the factors that lead to either poor or successful grafting outcomes. Here, we examine protein evolution and identify parallels between the natural process of protein functional diversification and the artificial process of molecular grafting. We discuss features of natural proteins that are correlated to innovability-the capacity to acquire new functions-and describe their implications to molecular grafting scaffolds. Disulfide-rich peptides are used as exemplars because they are particularly promising scaffolds onto which new functions can be grafted. This article provides a perspective on why some scaffolds are more suitable for grafting than others, identifying opportunities on how molecular grafting might be improved.
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.