ArticlePloS one2026
Assessment of generative de novo peptide design methods for G protein-coupled receptors.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) play an ubiquitous role in the transduction of extracellular stimuli into intracellular responses and therefore represent a major target for the development of novel peptide-based therapeutics. In fact, approximately 30% of all non-sensory GPCRs are peptide-targeted, representing a blueprint for the design of de novo peptides, both as pharmacological tools and therapeutics. The recent advances of deep learning-based protein structure generation and structure prediction offer a multitude of peptide design stategies for GPCRs, yet confidence metrics rarely correlate with experimental success. In the context of peptides, this problem is exacerbated due to the lack of elaborate tertiary structures in peptides, raising the question of whether this is due to inadequate sampling or insufficient scoring. In this two-part benchmark, we addressed this question by first simulating the validation process of 91 unique known GPCR-peptide and 22 unique GPCR-protein complexes including four nanobodies (nAbs) using AlphaFold2 Initial Guess, Boltz-2 and RosettaFold3. We then assessed the peptide sampling capabilities of the respective generative methods BindCraft, BoltzGen and RFdiffusion3. Our results indicate that current design pipelines primarily suffer from significant confidence overestimation for misplaced peptides in the validation phase across all three prediction methods. We further highlight occurrences of significant memorization in both prediction as well as generation of peptides. While all generative methods sample backbone space sufficiently, their simultaneous sequence generation remains subpar and can be partially recovered through the use of ProteinMPNN. Taken together, our benchmark offers guidance for the design of peptides specifically using deep learning-based pipelines.
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.