ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
A bird's-eye view of the biological mechanism and machine learning prediction approaches for cell-penetrating peptides.
Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in molecular dynamics approaches for investigating cell-penetrating peptides.Biophysical reviews · 2026Review
- Relationship between lung function impairment, clinical characteristics and systemic inflammation based on a large-scale population screening.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) are highly effective at passing through eukaryotic membranes with various cargo molecules, like drugs, proteins, nucleic acids, and nanoparticles, without causing significant harm. Creating drug delivery systems with CPP is associated with cancer, genetic disorders, and diabetes due to their unique chemical properties. Wet lab experiments in drug discovery methodologies are time-consuming and expensive. Machine learning (ML) techniques can enhance and accelerate the drug discovery process with accurate and intricate data quality. ML classifiers, such as support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), gradient-boosted decision trees (GBDT), and different types of artificial neural networks (ANN), are commonly used for CPP prediction with cross-validation performance evaluation. Functional CPP prediction is improved by using these ML strategies by using CPP datasets produced by high-throughput sequencing and computational methods. This review focuses on several ML-based CPP prediction tools. We discussed the CPP mechanism to understand the basic functioning of CPPs through cells. A comparative analysis of diverse CPP prediction methods was conducted based on their algorithms, dataset size, feature encoding, software utilities, assessment metrics, and prediction scores. The performance of the CPP prediction was evaluated based on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) on independent datasets. In conclusion, this review will encourage the use of ML algorithms for finding effective CPPs, which will have a positive impact on future research on drug delivery and therapeutics.
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.