Advances in Antimicrobial Peptide Discovery via Machine Learning and Delivery via Nanotechnology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) have been investigated for their potential use as an alternative to antibiotics due to the increased demand for new antimicrobial agents. AMPs, widely found in nature and obtained from microorganisms, have a broad range of antimicrobial protection, allowing them to be applied in the treatment of infections caused by various pathogenic microorganisms. Since these peptides are primarily cationic, they prefer anionic bacterial membranes due to electrostatic interactions. However, the applications of AMPs are currently limited owing to their hemolytic activity, poor bioavailability, degradation from proteolytic enzymes, and high-cost production. To overcome these limitations, nanotechnology has been used to improve AMP bioavailability, permeation across barriers, and/or protection against degradation. In addition, machine learning has been investigated due to its time-saving and cost-effective algorithms to predict AMPs. There are numerous databases available to train machine learning models. In this review, we focus on nanotechnology approaches for AMP delivery and advances in AMP design via machine learning. The AMP sources, classification, structures, antimicrobial mechanisms, their role in diseases, peptide engineering technologies, currently available databases, and machine learning techniques used to predict AMPs with minimal toxicity are discussed in detail.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".