{"title":"A Retrospective Benchmark of Quantitative Antimicrobial Peptide Activity Prediction Tools.","authors":"Jianda Yue, Zhaoyang Tang, Xie Li, Jiawei Xu, Hua Tan, Qizhang Yang, Zhonghua Liu, Ying Wang","doi":"10.1002/smtd.71137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are critical candidates for addressing the global antibiotic resistance crisis. AI-driven quantitative models capable of directly predicting peptide antimicrobial activity, specifically minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), are gaining scientific prominence by providing precise guidance for the rational design of AMPs. To assess their real-world, out-of-the-box performance, we conducted a retrospective benchmark of 10 publicly released quantitative AMP prediction tools spanning classical machine learning and contemporary deep learning approaches. Using an external dataset and reconstructed native datasets, we evaluated absolute MIC regression, retrospective reproducibility, directional prediction patterns, ranking capability, and virtual-screening enrichment. Most released tools exhibited poor absolute MIC regression and limited transferability to the external benchmark, while selected tools retained useful relative-ranking and enrichment capabilities. Retrospective evaluation further revealed marked differences in implementation-level reproducibility among the released tools. Error-stratified analyses identified systematic associations between prediction errors and peptide residue composition, together with a general compression of the predicted activity range. Collectively, these findings characterize the practical performance boundaries of currently accessible quantitative AMP prediction tools and support their use primarily as early-stage screening filters rather than precise substitutes for experimental MIC measurements.</p>","PeriodicalId":229,"journal":{"name":"Small Methods","volume":" ","pages":"e71137"},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Small Methods","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smtd.71137","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are critical candidates for addressing the global antibiotic resistance crisis. AI-driven quantitative models capable of directly predicting peptide antimicrobial activity, specifically minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), are gaining scientific prominence by providing precise guidance for the rational design of AMPs. To assess their real-world, out-of-the-box performance, we conducted a retrospective benchmark of 10 publicly released quantitative AMP prediction tools spanning classical machine learning and contemporary deep learning approaches. Using an external dataset and reconstructed native datasets, we evaluated absolute MIC regression, retrospective reproducibility, directional prediction patterns, ranking capability, and virtual-screening enrichment. Most released tools exhibited poor absolute MIC regression and limited transferability to the external benchmark, while selected tools retained useful relative-ranking and enrichment capabilities. Retrospective evaluation further revealed marked differences in implementation-level reproducibility among the released tools. Error-stratified analyses identified systematic associations between prediction errors and peptide residue composition, together with a general compression of the predicted activity range. Collectively, these findings characterize the practical performance boundaries of currently accessible quantitative AMP prediction tools and support their use primarily as early-stage screening filters rather than precise substitutes for experimental MIC measurements.
Small MethodsMaterials Science-General Materials Science
CiteScore
17.40
自引率
1.60%
发文量
347
期刊介绍:
Small Methods is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes groundbreaking research on methods relevant to nano- and microscale research. It welcomes contributions from the fields of materials science, biomedical science, chemistry, and physics, showcasing the latest advancements in experimental techniques.
With a notable 2022 Impact Factor of 12.4 (Journal Citation Reports, Clarivate Analytics, 2023), Small Methods is recognized for its significant impact on the scientific community.
The online ISSN for Small Methods is 2366-9608.