Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40877984›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2025

Systematic benchmarking of 13 AI methods for predicting cyclic peptide membrane permeability.

Wei Liu, Jianguo Li, Chandra S Verma, Hwee Kuan Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wei Liu *Bioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, 30 Biopilis Street, Singapore, 138671, Singapore. liuwei@bii.a-star.edu.sg.
Jianguo Li *Bioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, 30 Biopilis Street, Singapore, 138671, Singapore.
Chandra S VermaBioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, 30 Biopilis Street, Singapore, 138671, Singapore.
Hwee Kuan LeeBioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, 30 Biopilis Street, Singapore, 138671, Singapore. leehk@bii.a-star.edu.sg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cyclic peptides are promising drug candidates due to their ability to modulate intracellular protein-protein interactions, a property often inaccessible to small molecules. However, their typically poor membrane permeability limits therapeutic applicability. Accurate computational prediction of permeability can accelerate the identification of cell-permeable candidates, reducing reliance on time-consuming and costly experimental screening. Although deep learning has shown potential in predicting molecular properties, its application in permeability prediction remains underexplored. A systematic evaluation of these models is important to assess current capabilities and guide future development. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive benchmark of 13 machine learning models for predicting cyclic peptide membrane permeability. These models cover four types of molecular representations: fingerprints, SMILES strings, molecular graphs, and 2D images. We use experimentally measured PAMPA permeability data from the CycPeptMPDB database, comprising nearly 6000 cyclic peptides, and evaluate performance across three prediction tasks: regression, binary classification, and soft-label classification. Two data-splitting strategies, random split and scaffold split, are used to assess the generalizability of trained models. Our results show that model performance depends strongly on molecular representation and model architecture. Graph-based models, particularly the Directed Message Passing Neural Network (DMPNN), consistently achieve top performance across tasks. Regression generally outperforms classification. Scaffold-based splitting, although intended to more rigorously assess generalization, yields substantially lower model generalizability compared to random splitting. Comparing prediction errors with experimental variability highlights the practical value of current models while also indicating room for further improvement.

Indexed as

Benchmark studyCyclic peptideDeep learningMembrane permeability prediction

Identifiers

PMID40877984
PMCPMC12392647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.