ReviewBiochemical Society transactions2026
Methods for studying the effects of phosphorylation patterns in proteins.
Review in Biochemical Society transactions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- GSK3β functions as a mechanosensitive regulator that links flow stress to Shh signaling.Experimental cell research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Protein phosphorylation is one of the most common and versatile regulatory mechanisms in cells. Most human proteins are phosphorylated at multiple sites, giving rise to large numbers of possible phosphorylation patterns. Each phosphorylation pattern can lead to a different functional or pathological outcome. Yet, linking defined phosphorylation patterns to specific biological functions remains a major experimental challenge. In this review we describe the main strategies to study phosphorylation patterns at the protein and domain levels and highlight how they complement each other. We first discuss cellular approaches, including phosphomimetics, kinase-based assays, and genetic code expansion, which allow working in a native environment but have their significant drawbacks. We then describe in vitro methods, such as enzymatic phosphorylation and semi-synthetic phosphoproteins generated by ligation, which afford mechanistic insights but result in low yields and are difficult to scale for producing libraries. We focus on synthetic phosphopeptide libraries as tools that offer precise control over the number and position of phosphosites and are uniquely suited for systematic mapping of phosphorylation patterns. This comes at a price of not working at the protein level, but rather at the domain level. Peptide libraries are often used for preliminary identification of key phosphorylations, later studied in detail at the protein level. We conclude that ideally more than one method should be used and that these methods should not be viewed as competing but rather as complementary. A combined use of several of these approaches provides a practical toolbox for dissecting how phosphorylation patterns regulate protein behavior.
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.