4.6 Article

Computational Peptidology: A New and Promising Approach to Therapeutic Peptide Design

期刊

CURRENT MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 20, 期 15, 页码 1985-1996

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/0929867311320150005

关键词

Computational peptidology; peptide therapeutics; protein-protein interaction; peptidic drug

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31200993]
  2. Young Teacher Doctoral Discipline Fund of Ministry of Education [20120185120025]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [ZYGX2012J111]
  4. Scientific Research Fund of UESTC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent focus on protein-protein interaction networks has increasingly been shifted towards the disruption of protein complexes, which either are mediated by the binding of a globular domain in one protein to a short peptide stretch in another, or involve flat, large, and hydrophobic interfaces that classical small-molecule agents are not always ideally suited. Rational design of therapeutic peptides with high affinity targeting such interactions has emerged as a new and promising tool in discovery of potential drug candidates against associated diseases. The design is commonly based on bioinformatics methods or molecular modeling techniques, indirectly exploiting structure-activity relationship at the level of peptide sequence or directly deriving lead entities from protein complex architecture. Here, a newly rising subfield called computational peptidology that focuses on the use of computational and theoretical approaches to treat peptide-related problems is comprehensively reviewed on the design and discovery of peptide agents targeting protein-protein interactions. We address a systematic discussion on several representative cases in which the computational peptidology is successfully employed to develop peptide therapeutics. Besides, some problems and pitfalls accompanied with the current use of computational methods in peptide modeling and design are also present.

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

4.6
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