4.7 Article

Pepscan Approach for the Identification of Protein-Protein Interfaces: Lessons from Experiment

Journal

BIOMOLECULES
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biom11060772

Keywords

PEP-scan; protein-protein interaction; interfering peptide; binding specificity

Funding

  1. ANR [ANR-18-IDEX-0001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PEPscan is an effective method for identifying interfering peptides, which can interfere with protein-protein interactions. It is able to rapidly and accurately identify specific interfering peptides, but further validation is needed regarding their location at the protein-protein interface.
PEPscan is an old approach that has recently gained renewed interest for the identification of interfering peptides (IPs), i.e., peptides able to interfere with protein-protein interactions (PPIs). Its principle is to slice a protein sequence as a series of short overlapping peptides that are synthesized on a peptide array and tested for their ability to bind a partner, with positive spots corresponding to candidate IPs. PEPscan has been applied with a rather large success in various contexts, but the structural determinants underlying this success remain obscure. Here, we analyze the results of 14 PEPscan experiments, and confront the in vitro results with the available structural information. PEPscan identifies candidate IPs in limited numbers that in all cases correspond to solvent-accessible regions of the structures, their location at the protein-protein interface remaining to be further demonstrated. A strong point of PEPscan seems to be its ability to identify specific IPs. IPs identified from the same protein differ depending on the target PPI, and correspond to patches not frequently involved in the interactions seen in the 3D structures available. Overall, PEPscan seems to provide a cheap and rapid manner to identify candidate IPs, that also comes with room for improvement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available