ArticlePloS one2019
Software-aided workflow for predicting protease-specific cleavage sites using physicochemical properties of the natural and unnatural amino acids in peptide-based drug discovery.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of peptide cleavage sites using protein language models and graph neural networks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Stable Isotope Labeling-Based Nontargeted Strategy for Characterization of the In Vitro Metabolic Profile of a Novel Doping BPC-157 in Doping Control by UHPLC-HRMS.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Non-Canonical Amino Acids in Analyses of Protease Structure and Function.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- PhytoSelectDBT: A database for the molecular models of anti-diabetic targets docked with bioactive peptides from selected ethno-medicinal plants.Bioinformation · 2023Article
- Accelerating antibiotic discovery through artificial intelligence.Communications biology · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peptide drugs have been used in the treatment of multiple pathologies. During peptide discovery, it is crucially important to be able to map the potential sites of cleavages of the proteases. This knowledge is used to later chemically modify the peptide drug to adapt it for the therapeutic use, making peptide stable against individual proteases or in complex medias. In some other cases it needed to make it specifically unstable for some proteases, as peptides could be used as a system to target delivery drugs on specific tissues or cells. The information about proteases, their sites of cleavages and substrates are widely spread across publications and collected in databases such as MEROPS. Therefore, it is possible to develop models to improve the understanding of the potential peptide drug proteolysis. We propose a new workflow to derive protease specificity rules and predict the potential scissile bonds in peptides for individual proteases. WebMetabase stores the information from experimental or external sources in a chemically aware database where each peptide and site of cleavage is represented as a sequence of structural blocks connected by amide bonds and characterized by its physicochemical properties described by Volsurf descriptors. Thus, this methodology could be applied in the case of non-standard amino acid. A frequency analysis can be performed in WebMetabase to discover the most frequent cleavage sites. These results were used to train several models using logistic regression, support vector machine and ensemble tree classifiers to map cleavage sites for several human proteases from four different families (serine, cysteine, aspartic and matrix metalloproteases). Finally, we compared the predictive performance of the developed models with other available public tools PROSPERous and SitePrediction.
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.