Optimization of Antibacterial Peptides by Genetic Algorithms and Cheminformatics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pathogens resistant to available drug therapies are a pressing global health problem. Short, cationic peptides represent a novel class of agents that have lower rates of drug resistance than derivatives of current antibiotics. Previously, we created a software system utilizing artificial neural networks that were trained on quantitative structure-activity relationship descriptors calculated for a total of 1400 synthetic peptides for which antibacterial activity was determined. Using the trained system, we correctly identified additional peptides with activity of 94% accuracy; active peptides were 47 of the top rated 50 peptides chosen from an in silico library of nearly 100,000 sequences. Here, we report a method of generating candidate peptide sequences using the heuristic evolutionary programming method of genetic algorithms (GA), which provided a large (19-fold) improvement in identification of novel antibacterial peptides. Approximately 0.50% of peptides evaluated during the GA method were classified as highly active, while only 0.026% of the nearly 100,000 sequences we previously screened were classified as highly active. A selection of these peptides was tested in vitro and activities reported here. While GA significantly improves the possibility of identifying candidate peptides, we encountered important pitfalls to this method that should be considered when using GA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it