PreprintCited by 12Computational Drug Discovery MethodsChemical Synthesis and AnalysisMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

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 access

Preprint — 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2021.09.29.462289

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119491 · DOI
  2. 10.1038/s41573-019-0053-0 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/s41573-020-00135-8 · DOI
  4. 10.1517/17425247.2012.735658 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00414 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/j.chempr.2018.01.005 · DOI
  7. 10.1186/s12859-019-2766-9 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/cmdc.201800204 · DOI
  9. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty1047 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/s41467-018-07717-6 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.isci.2018.11.038 · DOI
  12. 10.1002/jcc.20917 · DOI
  13. 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
  14. 10.1186/s12859-017-1871-x · DOI
  15. 10.1038/s41598-019-56895-w · DOI
  16. 10.7717/peerj.7126 · DOI
  17. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz328 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty573 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/s41598-018-30044-1 · DOI
  20. 10.1038/s41598-020-68251-4 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.bmc.2017.06.052 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1093/nar/gkx1037 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1101/2021.01.22.427866 · DOI
  24. Bepler, T. & Berger, B. Learning protein sequence embeddings using information from structure. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, arXiv (2019).
  25. 10.1093/nar/gky1079 · DOI
  26. 10.1109/cibcb.2017.8058545 · DOI
  27. 10.1073/pnas.1808790115 · DOI
  28. 10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1016/0167-0115(96)00135-8 · DOI
  30. 10.1093/nar/gkz268 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1038/s41422-020-00442-0 · DOI
  32. 10.1021/acscombsci.0c00003 · DOI
  33. 10.1038/s41467-021-25772-4 · DOI
  34. 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)
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
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