Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,132

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Advances in Chemical Protein Modification

Open access
Boutureira, Omar, Bernardes, Gonçalo J. L.·2015·Chemical Reviews

Abstract

Chemical protein modification has emerged as an invaluable tool for the development of modified proteins. The complementary use of both genetic and chemical methods has provided a large toolbox that allows the preparation of almost unlimited protein constructs with either natural or synthetically modified residues. Such a protein chemodiversity, usually achieved after translation and commonly referred to as post-translational protein modifications (PTMs), is often responsible for the vast biodiversity found in nature. These modifications include acylation, methylation, phosphorylation, sulfation, farnesylation, ubiquitination, and glycosylation, among others, and play a pivotal role in important cellular processes including trafficking, differentiation, migration, and signaling. Consequently, reproducing in a highly efficient and controlled way such natural modifications of proteins (by introducing natural PTMs) would provide an invaluable tool to study their precise function. Additionally, the possibility offered by the introduction and (bio)orthogonal modification of unnatural moieties/amino acids (usually improving the properties of natural PTMs during isolation, analysis, and processing) makes site-selective modification of proteins a key tool for interrogating and intervening biological systems both in vitro and in vivo. Given the range of chemical modification methods available, it is now possible to decide which residue to target and which modification to attach in order to confer the desired property/function (affinity probes, fluorophores, reactive tags, etc.). For example, increasing the circulation half-life of a therapeutic protein may be achieved by the addition of polyethylene glycol (PEG). On the other hand, the use of a spectroscopic label to monitor biomolecule distribution in vivo enables the construction of highly selective imaging agents. Despite the vast progress in the field of bioconjugation chemistry, scientists still face many challenges, not only synthetically but also from a processing, manufacturing, safety, and stability perspective. A number of methods have been developed and applied for the modification of particular proteins and therefore may not be applicable to any protein of interest. Thus, there remains a need for the development of complementary reactions for the site-selective chemical modification of proteins that are mild, efficient, and robust. Several reviews covering different aspects of the chemical synthesis of proteins, from general native chemical ligation strategies and the modification of endogenous amino acids to more specialized topics such as click modification protocols, the introduction of particular PTMs including glycosylation, PEGylation, and polymerization of protein-based initiators, and the challenging labeling of a specific protein of interest in a complex cellular mixture using the so-called “bioorthogonal” reactions, have been published during the past decade. While the later publications describe different protein syntheses/modifications in detail, the aim of the present review is not to be an exhaustive survey of all available bioconjugation methodologies but to discuss recent chemical strategies for the site-selective modification of proteins such as fast sulfur exchange or stable thioether formation, photo and metal-free cycloadditions, and other particularly challenging metal-mediated protocols. This review will be divided into two sections: transition metal-free and transition metal-mediated approaches. For clarity, we will use the following terminology throughout this manuscript: residue/amino acid/site-selective (or simply site-selective) reactions are those transformations that preferentially modify one amino acid residue over the others (e.g., cysteine versus lysine) and, thus, can be considered examples of chemoselective reactions; on the other hand transformations described as regioselective preferentially modify only one of a set of the same amino acid, in particular when more than one is present in the same molecule (e.g., solvent-exposed lysine versus internal lysine).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/cr500399p

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 1,132

Metadata

Authors
Boutureira, O., & Bernardes, G. J. L.
Venue
Chemical Reviews
Published
2015-02-20
Volume
115
Issue
5
Pages
2174-2195
ISSN
  • 0009-2665 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6890
OpenAlex
W2315282308
Cited by
1,132
References
5
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Advances in Chemical Protein Modification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/cr500399p
The paper
Boutureira, O., & Bernardes, G. J. L. (2015). Advances in Chemical Protein Modification. Chemical Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr500399p

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.