4.5 Review

Cyclic and Macrocyclic Peptides as Chemical Tools To Recognise Protein Surfaces and Probe Protein-Protein Interactions

期刊

CHEMMEDCHEM
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 787-794

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cmdc.201500450

关键词

chemical probes; chemical tools; cyclic peptides; macrocycles; protein-protein interactions

资金

  1. European Research Council [ERC-2012-StG-311460 DrugE3CRLs]
  2. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/G023123/2]
  3. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [SFRH/BD/92417/2013]
  4. Wellcome Trust strategic award [100476/Z/12/Z]
  5. Wellcome Trust [100476/Z/12/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  6. BBSRC [BB/G023123/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G023123/2] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/92417/2013] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Targeting protein surfaces and protein-protein interactions (PPIs) with small molecules is a frontier goal of chemical biology and provides attractive therapeutic opportunities in drug discovery. The molecular properties of protein surfaces, including their shallow features and lack of deep binding pockets, pose significant challenges, and as a result have proved difficult to target. Peptides are ideal candidates for this mission due to their ability to closely mimic many structural features of protein interfaces. However, their inherently low intracellular stability and permeability and high in vivo clearance have thus far limited their biological applications. One way to improve these properties is to constrain the secondary structure of linear peptides by cyclisation. Herein we review various classes of cyclic and macrocyclic peptides as chemical probes of protein surfaces and modulators of PPIs. The growing interest in this area and recent advances provide evidence of the potential of developing peptide-like molecules that specifically target these interactions.

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

4.5
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