ReviewViruses2024
Improving Pharmacokinetics of Peptides Using Phage Display.
Review in Viruses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peptides in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer and Other Pancreatic Diseases from Basic Research to Clinical Translation.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Article
- PEGylation Overcomes Pharmacological Barriers to Improve Systemic Pharmacokinetics and Therapeutic Efficacy of Phages against MDRJournal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Article
- VesicleVoyager: In Vivo Selection of Surface Displayed Proteins That Direct Extracellular Vesicles to Tissue-Specific Targets.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2025Article
- Phage-specific antibodies: are they a hurdle for the success of phage therapy?Essays in biochemistry · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phage display is a versatile method often used in the discovery of peptides that targets disease-related biomarkers. A major advantage of this technology is the ease and cost efficiency of affinity selection, also known as biopanning, to identify novel peptides. While it is relatively straightforward to identify peptides with optimal binding affinity, the pharmacokinetics of the selected peptides often prove to be suboptimal. Therefore, careful consideration of the experimental conditions, including the choice of using in vitro, in situ, or in vivo affinity selections, is essential in generating peptides with high affinity and specificity that also demonstrate desirable pharmacokinetics. Specifically, in vivo biopanning, or the combination of in vitro, in situ, and in vivo affinity selections, has been proven to influence the biodistribution and clearance of peptides and peptide-conjugated nanoparticles. Additionally, the marked difference in properties between peptides and nanoparticles must be considered. While peptide biodistribution depends primarily on physiochemical properties and can be modified by amino acid modifications, the size and shape of nanoparticles also affect both absorption and distribution. Thus, optimization of the desired pharmacokinetic properties should be an important consideration in biopanning strategies to enable the selection of peptides and peptide-conjugated nanoparticles that effectively target biomarkers in vivo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.