Beyond natural amino acids: Extending immunogenicity risk assessment to non-canonical peptide drugs through chemical feature encoding
Open accessAbstract
Peptide therapeutics are increasingly used to treat challenging diseases, but immunogenicity risks limit their clinical success. In silico tools enable immunogenicity screening through prediction of peptide-MHCII binding, yet current methods fail to capture chemical properties of non-natural amino acids routinely incorporated to improve drug properties. Here, we present a machine learning approach combining chemical fingerprints with sequence information to predict MHC class II binding for both canonical and modified peptides. We propose two molecular representations (direct-encoding and similarity-based chemical fingerprints) that preserve positional information while encoding chemical diversity. These representations achieved performance comparable to sequence-based encodings (BLOSUM62 and one-hot) for canonical peptides while accurately identifying binding cores and motifs. Testing on citrullinated peptides, chemical fingerprints substantially improved quantitative prediction accuracy while maintaining comparable linear correlation across encoding methods, demonstrating the importance of explicit chemical representation for accurate absolute binding affinity prediction. These descriptors can be integrated into pan-allele prediction frameworks, enabling immunogenicity risk assessment across diverse modifications and therapeutic modalities, including peptide therapeutics, antibody-drug conjugates, and synthetic vaccines. The proposed chemistry-informed framework addresses a critical gap in preclinical drug development, facilitating early mitigation strategies before costly clinical trials.
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
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.
Cites
Larian Studios Dev Team (2024) · doi:10.1145/3292500.3330701 · Cited by 8,618 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Cairoli, M., Nielsen, M., Betts, C., Obrezanova, O., & Maria, L. D.
- Affiliations
- AstraZeneca (Sweden) (SE)
- Technical University of Denmark (DK)
- AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Venue
- European Peptide Symposium (EPS)
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2026-05-26
- OpenAlex
- W7214323174
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Peptide Symposium (EPS) (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- AstraZeneca
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Keywords
- unnatural amino acids, peptide immunogenicity, MHC class II binding prediction, chemical fingerprints, peptide therapeutics, citrulline, BLOSUM62, one-hot encoding, binding motifs
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