Cited by 34Computational Drug Discovery MethodsAntimicrobial Peptides and ActivitiesChemical Synthesis and Analysis

Bridging machine learning and peptide design for cancer treatment: a comprehensive review

Open access
Rezaee, Khosro, Eslami, Hossein·2025·Artificial Intelligence Review

Abstract

Anticancer peptides (ACPs) offer a promising alternative to traditional cancer therapies due to their specificity and reduced side effects. The development of ACPs using machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) follows a structured process, beginning with sequence collection from in vitro and in vivo experiments. Key features such as hydrophobicity and secondary structure are extracted, and classification models categorize peptides based on their properties. ML models predict anticancer effectiveness, followed by toxicity checks and Structure-Activity Relationship (SAR) analysis to ensure safety and efficacy, with validation tests confirming their activity. This review explores how the automated design of ACPs can be enhanced by leveraging advanced ML and DL techniques. These methods, with their ability to automate feature selection and activity prediction, have significantly improved the efficiency and accuracy of peptide discovery. This structured approach holds high potential to guide researchers in the automated design of ACPs, accelerating the discovery of effective peptides while ensuring safety. Special attention is given to new approaches such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), which show promise in addressing key challenges like data imbalance and computational complexity. Moreover, we examine the latest published research to compare the performance of various ML models in ACP prediction. By considering these advancements and challenges, this review outlines future opportunities for improving the scalability and reliability of ACP discovery using AI-driven techniques. This structured approach underscores the transformative impact of automation in peptide design, pushing the boundaries of modern cancer therapy development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10462-025-11148-3

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Rezaee, K., & Eslami, H.
Corresponding author
  • Rezaee, Khosro
  • Eslami, Hossein
Venue
Artificial Intelligence Review
Published
2025-03-05
Volume
58
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 0269-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7462
OpenAlex
W4408130332
Cited by
34
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 15
FWCI
15.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Artificial Intelligence Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Antimicrobial Peptides and Activities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
Keywords
anticancer peptides, peptide design, machine learning, deep learning, structure-activity relationship, peptide toxicity prediction, hydrophobicity, secondary structure, generative adversarial networks, convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks, cancer therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review