ArticleScientific reports2026
FrogPCSP: a propeptide cleavage site predictor for frog antimicrobial peptides.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Frogs produce and secrete cutaneous antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), which serve as chemical defense against microbial infections and have great biotechnological potential. AMPs are stored in intracellular vesicles in skin glands as propeptides. Before secretion, proprotein convertases (PCs) cleave propeptides into acidic spacer peptides and bioactive peptides. Identifying the correct cleavage site between the acidic spacer and bioactive peptides is a crucial step in AMP prediction. Here, we present Frog Propeptide Cleavage Site Predictor (FrogPCSP), an SVM-based predictor designed to identify propeptide cleavage sites in frog AMPs. The SVM model showed strong performance (global accuracy = 0.981, precision = 0.937, recall = 0.928, F1-score = 0.933, PR-AUC: 0.916) under grouped and stratified 10-fold cross-validation on 424 positive and 2488 negative cleavage sites. Overall, FrogPCSP demonstrated superior performance for propeptide cleavage site prediction of frog AMPs (AUC = 0.990) relative to PSSM (AUC = 0.974) and ProP (AUC = 0.905), a general-purpose reference prohormone cleavage site predictor. As proof of concept, 595 unlabeled frog AMP sequences from UniProtKB/TrEMBL were analyzed. FrogPCSP inferred 926 putative propeptide cleavage sites. Computational physicochemical profiling of the resulting peptides revealed two distinct clusters, one positively charged, with high isoelectric point and strong amphipathicity-consistent with putative bioactive peptides-and another negatively charged, with low isoelectric point and low amphipathicity values-corresponding to putative acidic spacer peptides. Thus, we believe identifying propeptide cleavage sites will assist the discovery and advance the understanding of novel frog AMPs.
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.