ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2019
Twenty years of bioinformatics research for protease-specific substrate and cleavage site prediction: a comprehensive revisit and benchmarking of existing methods.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Antimicrobial Peptide Discovery: Prediction, Generation, Mining and Optimization.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Calpain cleaves the distal carboxyl terminus of TRPV1 and modulates its tachyphylaxis.Cell & bioscience · 2026Article
- Predicting enzymatic cleavage sites in cyclic peptides with non-canonical amino acids using a Graphormer model trained on MetID user data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Prediction of peptide cleavage sites using protein language models and graph neural networks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Charting γ-secretase substrates by explainable AI.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Protein cleaver: an interactive web interface forFrontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Cationic antimicrobial peptides: potential templates for anticancer agents.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- INTEDE 2.0: the metabolic roadmap of drugs.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- ADCdb: the database of antibody-drug conjugates.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- A bird's-eye view of the biological mechanism and machine learning prediction approaches for cell-penetrating peptides.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- Integrative modeling of diverse protein-peptide systems using CABS-dock.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Predicting Structural Susceptibility of Proteins to Proteolytic Processing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Peptidomics analysis of plasma in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Approaches to Avoid Proteolysis During Protein Expression and Purification.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Article
- Integrating knowledge of protein sequence with protein function for the prediction and validation of new MALT1 substrates.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- Deep Learning-Based Advances In Protein Posttranslational Modification Site and Protein Cleavage Prediction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Computational identification of eukaryotic promoters based on cascaded deep capsule neural networks.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Large-scale comparative review and assessment of computational methods for anti-cancer peptide identification.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Review
- Mouse Models of Human Proprotein Convertase Insufficiency.Endocrine reviews · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The roles of proteolytic cleavage have been intensively investigated and discussed during the past two decades. This irreversible chemical process has been frequently reported to influence a number of crucial biological processes (BPs), such as cell cycle, protein regulation and inflammation. A number of advanced studies have been published aiming at deciphering the mechanisms of proteolytic cleavage. Given its significance and the large number of functionally enriched substrates targeted by specific proteases, many computational approaches have been established for accurate prediction of protease-specific substrates and their cleavage sites. Consequently, there is an urgent need to systematically assess the state-of-the-art computational approaches for protease-specific cleavage site prediction to further advance the existing methodologies and to improve the prediction performance. With this goal in mind, in this article, we carefully evaluated a total of 19 computational methods (including 8 scoring function-based methods and 11 machine learning-based methods) in terms of their underlying algorithm, calculated features, performance evaluation and software usability. Then, extensive independent tests were performed to assess the robustness and scalability of the reviewed methods using our carefully prepared independent test data sets with 3641 cleavage sites (specific to 10 proteases). The comparative experimental results demonstrate that PROSPERous is the most accurate generic method for predicting eight protease-specific cleavage sites, while GPS-CCD and LabCaS outperformed other predictors for calpain-specific cleavage sites. Based on our review, we then outlined some potential ways to improve the prediction performance and ease the computational burden by applying ensemble learning, deep learning, positive unlabeled learning and parallel and distributed computing techniques. We anticipate that our study will serve as a practical and useful guide for interested readers to further advance next-generation bioinformatics tools for protease-specific cleavage site prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.