ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
PhageScout: Protease Cleavage Site Prediction Using an Experimental Substrate Phage Display Motif-Based Approach.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identification of protease cleavage sites is essential for understanding biological regulation and disease mechanisms, yet many predictive approaches rely on annotated substrates and curated databases, limiting performance for poorly characterized proteases. We present PhageScout, a framework for database-independent generation of protease-specific features to predict cleavage sites using de novo experimental substrate phage display screening. We screened a randomized 5-mer phage display library against two neutrophil serine proteases (cathepsin G, elastase). Cleaved peptides generated position weight matrices (PWMs) and peptide enrichment scores to evaluate cleavage-site likelihood across substrate sequences. Sequence-derived scores were integrated with structural features, including accessibility and flexibility, using XGBoost classification models. Performance was benchmarked against annotated cleavage sites from the MEROPS peptidase database as reference data. Phage-derived PWM scores alone captured protease preferences and discriminated cleavage sites from background sites. Without model fitting, PWM scores achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.756 (95%CI: 0.714-0.797) (cathepsin G) and 0.787 (95%CI: 0.753-0.821) (elastase). Combining broad and specific phage-derived scores improved cathepsin G prediction (AUC = 0.783), whereas this improvement was not observed for elastase. Compared to only phage-derived features, XGBoost models integrating phage sequence and structural features provided modest gains for elastase (AUC = 0.775 to 0.806), with phage-derived features ranking among the strongest predictors, but not cathepsin G (AUC = 0.702 to 0.710). Our findings demonstrate that PhageScout can use experimentally derived cleavage signatures to generate protease-specific predictive features and prioritize protease cleavage sites, providing a framework that warrants further validation across diverse proteases and biological contexts.
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.