ReviewACS omega2024
Tips and Tricks in the Modeling of Supramolecular Peptide Assemblies.
Review in ACS omega, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amphipathic β‑Sheet-Forming Octapeptide Self-Assembly Using the Martini Potential Family.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Secondary Structure Bead-Encoded Amphiphilicity Biases Peptide Self-Assembly Prediction in MARTINI Coarse-Grained Simulations.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Article
- Tuning the Dimensionality of Protein-Peptide Coassemblies to Build 2D Conductive Nanomaterials.ACS nano · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Supramolecular peptide assemblies (SPAs) hold promise as materials for nanotechnology and biomedicine. Although their investigation often entails adapting experimental techniques from their protein counterparts, SPAs are fundamentally distinct from proteins, posing unique challenges for their study. Computational methods have emerged as indispensable tools for gaining deeper insights into SPA structures at the molecular level, surpassing the limitations of experimental techniques, and as screening tools to reduce the experimental search space. However, computational studies have grappled with issues stemming from the absence of standardized procedures and relevant crystal structures. Fundamental disparities between SPAs and protein simulations, such as the absence of experimentally validated initial structures and the importance of the simulation size, number of molecules, and concentration, have compounded these challenges. Understanding the roles of various parameters and the capabilities of different models and simulation setups remains an ongoing endeavor. In this review, we aim to provide readers with guidance on the parameters to consider when conducting SPA simulations, elucidating their potential impact on outcomes and validity.
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.