4.4 Article

Latest Advances in OBOC Peptide Libraries. Improvements in Screening Strategies and Enlarging the Family From Linear to Cyclic Libraries

期刊

CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 449-457

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1389201017666160114095553

关键词

Mass Spectrometry; Tandem MS/MS; peptide; peptoid; cyclic; libraries; affinity

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas de la Republica Argentina [PIP 0072CO, PIP 11220130100119CO]
  2. Universidad de Buenos Aires [0055BA, 20020130100060BA]
  3. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica de Argentina [PICT 2012-1881, PICT-2014-1508, PICT 2012-0888]
  4. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica de Argentina (Ultraflex II (Bruker) TOF/TOF mass spectrometer grant) [PME 125/03]
  5. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia e Innovacion Productiva and Universidad de Buenos Aires [PDTS-PB03-PCTI 74]
  6. Secretaria de Estado de Cooperacion Internacional (AECI)
  7. CICYT [CTQ2012-30930]
  8. Generalitat de Catalunya [2014 SGR 137]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid phase screenings of one bead one compound (OBOC) libraries have been widely used to find ligands with pharmacological and analytical uses, and to purify or detect proteins in complex mixtures. To improve library screening, in the last years various strategies have been developed to avoid the selection of false positive beads and to obtain selective ligands. Currently, there is great interest in cyclic peptides because of their resistance to enzymatic degradation and higher selectivity compared to their linear counterparts. Lots of cyclic peptide libraries protocols have been recently developed to facilitate hits analysis. The aim of this review is to summarize the latest applications of solid phase screening of OBOC combinatorial peptide libraries, the improvements in the screening methods including mass spectrometry MS/MS techniques and the strategies to synthesize OBOC cyclic peptide libraries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据