A Deep Learning Method for Predicting the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration of Antimicrobial Peptides against Escherichia coli using Multi-Branch-CNN and Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are a promising alternative to antibiotics to combat drug resistance in pathogenic bacteria. However, the development of AMPs with high potency and specificity remains a challenge, and new tools to evaluate antimicrobial activity are needed to accelerate the discovery process. As a step toward direct prediction of the experimental minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of AMPs, we proposed MBC-Attention, a combination of a multi-branch CNN architecture and attention mechanism. Using a curated dataset of 3929 AMP against Escherichia coli, the optimal MBC-Attention model achieved an average Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.775 and an RMSE of 0.533 (log μM) in three independent tests of 393 sequences each. This results in a 5–12% improvement in PCC and 7–13% improvement in RMSE compared with RF and SVM models. Ablation studies confirmed that both attention mechanisms contributed to performance improvement.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".