Peptides of a Feather: How Computation Is Taking Peptide Therapeutics under Its Wing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leveraging computation in the development of peptide therapeutics has garnered increasing recognition as a valuable tool to generate novel therapeutics for disease-related targets. To this end, computation has transformed the field of peptide design through identifying novel therapeutics that exhibit enhanced pharmacokinetic properties and reduced toxicity. The process of in-silico peptide design involves the application of molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulations, and machine learning algorithms. Three primary approaches for peptide therapeutic design including structural-based, protein mimicry, and short motif design have been predominantly adopted. Despite the ongoing progress made in this field, there are still significant challenges pertaining to peptide design including: enhancing the accuracy of computational methods; improving the success rate of preclinical and clinical trials; and developing better strategies to predict pharmacokinetics and toxicity. In this review, we discuss past and present research pertaining to the design and development of in-silico peptide therapeutics in addition to highlighting the potential of computation and artificial intelligence in the future of disease therapeutics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".