Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41168342›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Prediction of peptide cleavage sites using protein language models and graph neural networks.

Paula Cifuentes, Ramon Adàlia, Ismael Zamora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  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

3 authors.

Paula CifuentesUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. paula.cifuentes01@estudiant.upf.edu.
Ramon AdàliaLead Molecular Design, S.L., 08173, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain.
Ismael ZamoraLead Molecular Design, S.L., 08173, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain.

Funding

Generalitat de Catalunya 00002/2023
6 · The paper itself

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

Neural Networks, ComputerPeptidesProteinsAlgorithmsAmino AcidsComputational BiologyComputer SimulationGraph Neural NetworksMachine LearningPeptides, CyclicProteolysisAmino AcidsPeptidesPeptides, CyclicProteinsCleavage site predictionCyclic peptidesGraph neural networksMachine learningModified amino acidsProtein language model

Identifiers

PMID41168342
PMCPMC12575701

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.