The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing sequence-based protein-protein interaction predictors for use in therapeutic peptide engineering
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1038/s41598-022-13227-9
Abstract
Engineering peptides to achieve a desired therapeutic effect through the inhibition of a specific target activity or protein interaction is a non-trivial task. Few of the existing in silico peptide design algorithms generate target-specific peptides. Instead, many methods produce peptides that achieve a desired effect through an unknown mechanism. In contrast with resource-intensive high-throughput experiments, in silico screening is a cost-effective alternative that can prune the space of candidates when engineering target-specific peptides. Using a set of FDA-approved peptides we curated specifically for this task, we assess the applicability of several sequence-based protein-protein interaction predictors as a screening tool within the context of peptide therapeutic engineering. We show that similarity-based protein-protein interaction predictors are more suitable for this purpose than the state-of-the-art deep learning methods publicly available at the time of writing. We also show that this approach is mostly useful when designing new peptides against targets for which naturally-occurring interactors are already known, and that deploying it for de novo peptide engineering tasks may require gathering additional target-specific training data. Taken together, this work offers evidence that supports the use of similarity-based protein-protein interaction predictors for peptide therapeutic engineering, especially peptide analogs.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119491 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41573-019-0053-0 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41573-020-00135-8 · DOI
- 10.1517/17425247.2012.735658 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00414 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.chempr.2018.01.005 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12859-019-2766-9 · DOI
- 10.1002/cmdc.201800204 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty1047 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-018-07717-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.isci.2018.11.038 · DOI
- 10.1002/jcc.20917 · DOI
- Kinghorn, A. et al. Progress in the Chemistry of Organic Natural Products 110: Cheminformatics in Natural Product Research. Progress in the Chemistry of Organic Natural Products (Springer International Publishing, 2019). · DOI
- 10.1186/s12859-017-1871-x · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-019-56895-w · DOI
- 10.7717/peerj.7126 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz328 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty573 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-018-30044-1 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-020-68251-4 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bmc.2017.06.052 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/nar/gkx1037 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1101/2021.01.22.427866 · DOI
- Bepler, T. & Berger, B. Learning protein sequence embeddings using information from structure. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, arXiv (2019).
- 10.1093/nar/gky1079 · DOI
- 10.1109/cibcb.2017.8058545 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1808790115 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0167-0115(96)00135-8 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkz268 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s41422-020-00442-0 · DOI
- 10.1021/acscombsci.0c00003 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-021-25772-4 · DOI
- 10.1093/bib/bbab499 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Charih, F., Biggar, K. K., & Green, J. R.
- Affiliations
- Carleton University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Green, James R.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2021-09-30
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9610-9610
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9187631
- OpenAlex
- W4281648937
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (PGSD‐3, PGSD3-534359-2019)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein-protein interaction prediction, in silico peptide design, peptide analogues, de novo peptide design, virtual screening
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Peptides
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