Are Peptides Truly Less Important than Proteins, or are Peptides and Proteins Mutually Inclusive of Each other?

Abstract

In today’s research world, peptides and related functions are mostly undermined, undervalued, underappreciated, and sometimes maybe marginalized. It could be mainly due to the fact that peptides are shorter in amino acid length (less sequence conservation or variation), less structured (more random structures i.e., many do not form defined secondary structures), single-functioned (not as dual or even multifunctional), more direct-action oriented (less indirect and consequently more complex effects, e.g., signaling cascade events), and less global impacts (e.g., peptidomes are far less characterized than proteomes to date, due to either lack of interest or lack of available and validated tools and methods). These factors make peptides less attractive for research studies than their protein counterparts.