ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Information leakage in enzyme-substrate prediction.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationEnzymes are essential catalysts in many cellular processes. Understanding their interactions with small molecules, such as regulators, cofactors, and most importantly, substrates, is crucial for understanding the biochemical processes that occur in cells. Correctly interpreting the roles of small molecules that interact with enzymes is key to elucidating enzyme function. Recently, enzyme-small-molecule interaction prediction has attracted growing interest from computational methods, especially deep learning. As a result, researchers have published several datasets and numerous models with remarkable performance.
resultsIn this work, we critically examine one of the most popular datasets and four models trained on it, identifying similarity-induced information leakage that may overinflate reported model performance in out-of-distribution applications. We show that the inspected models are susceptible to information leakage, and their performance is not better than statistical baselines when the leakage is removed. Furthermore, controlling for leakage due to protein sequence similarity alone still yields high predictive performance, whereas performance decreases substantially when common substrates shared between training and test sets are removed from one of them, and approaches random prediction when structurally similar ligands are separated between splits. Thus, the investigated models generalize considerably better across enzyme sequence space than across ligand chemical space, indicating that their reported performance depends strongly on the small-molecule similarity between training and evaluation data. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All data splits we calculated in this study are available on Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18786394). The code is available on GitHub and backed up on Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18788609).
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.