Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41047732›Full record

ArticleProteins2026

Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning-Based Algorithms for Peptide Structure Prediction.

Clément Sauvestre, Jean-François Zagury, Florent Langenfeld

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Proteins, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Clément SauvestreLaboratoire GBCM, EA7528, Conservatoire National des Arts et métiers (CNAM), HESAM Université, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3814-0514
Jean-François ZaguryLaboratoire GBCM, EA7528, Conservatoire National des Arts et métiers (CNAM), HESAM Université, Paris, France.
Florent LangenfeldLaboratoire GBCM, EA7528, Conservatoire National des Arts et métiers (CNAM), HESAM Université, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3184-3401

Funding

Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While of primary importance in both the biomedical and therapeutic fields, peptides suffer from a relative lack of dedicated tools to predict efficiently and accurately their 3D structures despite being a crucial step in understanding their physio-pathological function or designing new drugs. In recent years, deep-learning methods have enabled a major breakthrough for the protein 3D structure prediction approaches, allowing to predict protein 3D structures with a near-experimental accuracy for nearly any protein sequence. This present study aims at confronting some of these new methods (AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold2, and ESMFold) for the peptides' 3D structure prediction problem and evaluating their performance. All methods produced high-quality results, but their overall performance is lower as compared to the prediction of protein 3D structures. We also identified a few structural features that impede the ability to produce high-quality peptide structure predictions. These findings point out the discrepancy that still exists between the protein and peptide 3D structure prediction methods and underline a few cases where the generated peptide structures should be used very cautiously.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDeep LearningPeptidesProteinsAlgorithmsAmino Acid SequenceDatabases, ProteinModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProtein FoldingPeptidesProteinsalphafolddeep learningpeptidepredictionthree‐dimensional structure

Identifiers

PMID41047732
PMCPMC12865272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.