The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Studying protein–protein interactions using peptide arrays
Abstract
Screening of arrays and libraries of compounds is well-established as a high-throughput method for detecting and analyzing interactions in both biological and chemical systems. Arrays and libraries can be composed from various types of molecules, ranging from small organic compounds to DNA, proteins and peptides. The applications of libraries for detecting and characterizing biological interactions are wide and diverse, including for example epitope mapping, carbohydrate arrays, enzyme binding and protein-protein interactions. Here, we will focus on the use of peptide arrays to study protein-protein interactions. Characterization of protein-protein interactions is crucial for understanding cell functionality. Using peptides, it is possible to map the precise binding sites in such complexes. Peptide array libraries usually contain partly overlapping peptides derived from the sequence of one protein from the complex of interest. The peptides are attached to a solid support using various techniques such as SPOT-synthesis and photolithography. Then, the array is incubated with the partner protein from the complex of interest. Finally, the detection of the protein-bound peptides is carried out by using immunodetection assays. Peptide array screening is semi-quantitative, and quantitative studies with selected peptides in solution are required to validate and complement the screening results. These studies can improve our fundamental understanding of cellular processes by characterizing amino acid patterns of protein-protein interactions, which may even develop into prediction algorithms. The binding peptides can then serve as a basis for the design of drugs that inhibit or activate the target protein-protein interactions. In the current review, we will introduce the recent work on this subject performed in our and in other laboratories. We will discuss the applications, advantages and disadvantages of using peptide arrays as a tool to study protein-protein interactions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Substrate specificity of the SecB chaperone.
Knoblauch, N. T. M., Rüdiger, S., Schönfeld, H.-J., Driessen, A. J. M., Schneider-Mergener, J., & Bukau, B. (1999) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.274.48.34219 · Cited by 154
Self-citation
Cited by
Modulators of Protein–Protein Interactions
Milroy, L.-G., Grossmann, T. N., Hennig, S., Brunsveld, L., & Ottmann, C. (2014) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr400698c · Cited by 497
Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) inhibitors: Current research and prospective
Zhang, Y., Liang, X., Bao, X., Xiao, W., & Chen, G. (2022) · European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.ejmech.2022.114291 · Cited by 299
Site-Selective C(sp3)–H Functionalization of Di-, Tri-, and Tetrapeptides at the N-Terminus
Gong, W., Zhang, G., Liu, T., Giri, R., & Yu, J.-Q. (2014) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja510233h · Cited by 288
Mudunkotuwa, I. A., Minshid, A. A., & Grassian, V. H. (2014) · The Analyst · doi:10.1039/c3an01684f · Cited by 278
Targeting protein–protein interactions, a wide open field for drug design
Bakail, M., & Ochsenbein, F. (2016) · Comptes Rendus. Chimie · doi:10.1016/j.crci.2015.12.004 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Katz, C., Levy-Beladev, L., Rotem-Bamberger, S., Rito, T., Rüdiger, S. G. D., & Friedler, A.
- Venue
- Chemical Society Reviews
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2131
- ISSN
- 0306-0012 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-4744
- OpenAlex
- W2148161067
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.