MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating Different Descriptors for Model Design of Antimicrobial Peptides with Enhanced Activity Toward <i>P. aeruginosa</i>

2007· article· en· W2139652091 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Biology & Drug Design · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsAntimicrobialPeptideAntimicrobial peptidesQuantitative structure–activity relationshipPseudomonas aeruginosaComputational biologyPredictive powerMolecular descriptorBiological systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCombinatorial chemistryMachine learningChemistryBiologyBiochemistryMicrobiologyPhysicsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of isolated drug-resistant pathogenic microbes has increased drastically over the past decades, demonstrating an urgent need for new therapeutic interventions. Antimicrobial peptides have for a long time been looked upon as an interesting template for drug optimization. However, the process of optimizing peptide antimicrobial activity and specificity, using large peptide libraries is both tedious and expensive. Here, we describe the construction of a mathematical model for prediction, prior to synthesis, of peptide antibacterial activity toward Pseudomonas aeruginosa. By use of novel descriptors quantifying the contact energy between neighboring amino acids in addition to a set of inductive and conventional quantitative structure-activity relationship descriptors, we are able to model the peptides antibacterial activity. Cross-correlation and optimization of the implemented descriptor values have enabled us to build a model (Bac2a- #2) that was able to correctly predict the activity of 84% of the tested peptides, within a twofold deviation window of the corresponding IC50 values, measured earlier. The predictive power, is an average of 10 submodels, each predicting the activity of 20 randomly excluded peptides, with a predictive success of 16.7 +/- 1.6 peptides. The model has also been proven significantly more accurate than a simpler model (Bac2a- #1), where the inductive and conventional quantitative structure-activity relationship descriptors were excluded.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it