Talk:Cell-penetrating peptide

Untitled
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)30958-9 Maybe information about this could be included? English is not my native language and I could not keep the standard of the current article otherwise I would add it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.171.80 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph 1: This needs some serious work and I don't have the time to tackle it. The second study was done by Frankel, not Franklin; Chloroquine is not a CPP; viruses do not take up cell penetrating peptides; the cells were infected by HIV, they were not HIV cells. I'm not going to go get the references today and try to fix this. Good luck.

Paragraph 2: I am removing the following part of the discussion of the Abes et al. 2007 paper: The study done by Montpellier 2 also studied the effect of drugs that inhibited binding to the cytosol, to block protein synthesis, and the nucleus inhibiting mRNA synthesis. By measuring the levels of luminenesce they were able to see that reaching the cyotosol and binding to the nucleus are nessacary to the function the CPPs because when inhibited uptake stopped uptake of material or lowered the level significantly.

This needs work if it is to be reinserted. "binding to the cytosol" does not make sense, I assume they mean binding to the cell membrane. There were some nice inhibitor studies in the paper but they need to be accurately reported for inclusion here.

JonMoulton 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Andreslaan, for your excellent revisions.

JonMoulton (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In the section "CPPs for antisense oligonucleotide delivery", I changed the title to "CPPs for antisense oligomer delivery" as neither PNA not PMO oligos are nucleotides (by definition).

Interesting hypothesis: Because of repulsion by cell membrane of negative charged ONs and degradation by enzymes, two types of neutral ON analogues, peptide nucleic acid (PNA) and phosphorodiamidate morpholina oligomers (PMO) are becoming dominant in this area.

An alternate hypothesis suggests that it is the lack of electrostatic interaction between the oligo backbone and the cationic peptide that increase the efficacy of CPP delivery of PNA and Morpholino antisense. However, I'll let that statement stand (with correction of the Morpholino spelling).

JonMoulton (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note to let you know this article was expanded as part of a graduate level biomembranes assignment at the University of Florida. You can see the project page here. As a result, the student responsible for the expansion may not respond quickly now that the assignment is over. I have encouraged the students to see the articles through GA, but alas...the spring semester is drawing to a close. We shall see. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good assignment concept and good work on the part of the students! JonMoulton (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 2: I deleted, "Recent experimental data has validated this key ingredient of the model showing that cell-penetrating peptides indeed form transient pores on lipid bilayers and on live cells" and modified the opening sentence to maintain cohesiveness. Only one paper is referenced for supporting this theory, and furthermore that paper uses a molecular dynamics *simulation* to test the theory, not experimental data. I also specified that the side chain are amino acid and specifically arginine

lack of cell specificity
"Current use is limited by a lack of cell specificity in CPP mediated cargo delivery"

What do you mean by lack of cell specificity ? Happenened to read this:

"The enhancing effect of the tested CPPs was more obvious in the normal tissue and in some specimens we detected a striking selectivity of CPP-ABG complexes for the normal tissue" http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/3/3/621/ --Bstard12 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)