Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39072142›Full record

ReviewACS omega2024

Tips and Tricks in the Modeling of Supramolecular Peptide Assemblies.

Tomasz K Piskorz, Laura Perez-Chirinos, Baofu Qiao, Ivan R Sasselli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Tomasz K PiskorzDepartment of Chemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QZ, U.K.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0716-6874
Laura Perez-ChirinosCenter for Cooperative Research in Biomaterials (CIC biomaGUNE), Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Paseo de Miramón 182, 20014 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain.
Baofu QiaoDepartment of Natural Sciences, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, New York 10010, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8870-5985
Ivan R SasselliCentro de Física de Materiales (CFM), CSIC-UPV/EHU, Paseo Manuel de Lardizabal 5, 20018 San Sebastián, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6062-2440

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39072142
PMCPMC11270692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.