“…Typically, this has required division of a protein into accessible segments that can be stitched together using chemoligation strategies such as native chemical ligation (Agouridas et al, 2019; Dawson, Muir, & Kent, 1994; Kent, 2009; Müller & Muir, 2015) (NCL, resulting in a native peptide bond, most commonly at a cysteine site) followed by desulfurization (allowing expanded ligation sites, including alanine) (Jin, Li, Chow, Liu, & Li, 2017; Wan & Danishefsky, 2007; Yan & Dawson, 2001). Sequential (Raibaut, Ollivier, & Melnyk, 2012; Shimko, North, Bruns, Poirier, & Ottesen, 2011), one-pot (Bang & Kent, 2004; Kamo, Hayashi, & Okamoto, 2018; Li et al, 2014; Tang et al, 2015; Zuo, Zhang, Yan, & Zheng, 2018), and convergent (Bang, Pentelute, & Kent, 2006; Durek, Torbeev, & Kent, 2007; Fang, Wang, & Liu, 2012; Qi, He, Ai, Guo, & Li, 2017) ligation strategies have enabled the synthesis of small to medium-sized proteins (<150 residues) but have been limited in scope and practical application by the size and synthetic accessibility of the component peptide segments, the chemical or kinetic control of intermediate ligation specificity, and the number of purification steps required to achieve the final product. In theory, sequential ligation carried out on the solid phase should overcome these barriers, allowing facile recombination of peptide segments while eliminating the need for intermediate purification (Brik, Keinan, & Dawson, 2000; Canne et al, 1999; Jbara, Seenaiah, & Brik, 2014).…”