ReviewBiomolecules2026
Artificial Intelligence for Therapeutic Peptide Discovery and Development.
Review in Biomolecules, 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Therapeutic peptides combine biological specificity with chemical versatility, and artificial intelligence (AI) now contributes to their identification, design, and optimisation. Peptide discovery, however, cannot be reduced to generating amino-acid sequences: therapeutic performance also depends on chemistry, conformation, assay context, stability, delivery, safety, manufacturability, and in vivo exposure. This critical review examines AI use across the major peptide classes: receptor agonists, protein-protein interaction inhibitors, oncology and tumour-targeting peptides, antimicrobial and phenotype-driven peptides, delivery peptides, vaccine epitopes, self-assembling materials, and chemically constrained macrocycles. It compares sequence-based, chemical, graph, structure-aware, and multimodal representations across predictive, generative, and experimentally integrated workflows. Coverage spans recent general protein foundation, prediction, and design systems (ProtGPT2, ESM-2/ESM3, ProGen/ProGen2, ProteinMPNN, RFdiffusion, and AlphaFold 3) and peptide-focused methods (RFpeptides, PepFlow, and PepGLAD). Particular attention is given to benchmark integrity, the limits of structure prediction for short and non-canonical molecules, and the gap between retrospective and prospective evidence. To make claims comparable, the review adapts established reporting, validation, and readiness concepts into a peptide-specific, two-dimensional Peptide-AI Evidence Grid that separates methodological rigour (M0-M3) from translational depth (T0-T3), applies it to representative studies, and provides a checklist extending DOME, TRIPOD + AI, and FAIR guidance with the chemistry- and assay-specific items peptide work requires.
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.