ArticleScientific reports2025
Prediction of peptide cleavage sites using protein language models and graph neural networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- PhageScout: Protease Cleavage Site Prediction Using an Experimental Substrate Phage Display Motif-Based Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Cyclic Peptides as Modulators of Protein-Protein Interactions: A Survival Guide from Discovery Platforms to AI-Driven Design.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Predicting enzymatic cleavage sites in cyclic peptides with non-canonical amino acids using a Graphormer model trained on MetID user data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
Abstract
The growing interest in using peptide molecules as therapeutic agents, driven by their high selectivity and efficacy, has become a significant trend in the pharmaceutical industry. However, their oral administration remains challenging due to their low bioavailability and vulnerability to proteases, which produce the cleavage of peptide bonds. To optimize peptide drug development, in silico tools based on machine learning algorithms have been developed for site of cleavage prediction. These tools, which rely on manual feature extraction, have limitations in capturing complex peptide structures, especially those involving non-natural amino acids or cyclic peptides. This study presents two novel in silico approaches for cleavage site prediction. The first approach uses protein language models, specifically ESM-2, which has been fine- tuned to leverage its learned peptide structure embeddings for accurate cleavage site prediction, eliminating the need for manual feature engineering. The second approach employs graph neural networks, representing peptides via hierarchical graphs at the atom and amino acid levels, effectively handling cyclic peptide structures, including those containing non-natural amino acids. The applicability of this second approach is shown through a case study on a set of four cyclic peptides containing non-natural amino acids, comparing in silico predictions with experimental data.
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.