Abstract:The peptide quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR), also known as the quantitative sequence–activity model (QSAM), has attracted much attention in the bio- and chemoinformatics communities and is a well developed computational peptidology strategy to statistically correlate the sequence/structure and activity/property relationships of functional peptides. Amino acid descriptors (AADs) are one of the most widely used methods to characterize peptide structures by decomposing the peptide into its residue building blocks and sequentially parametrizing each building block with a vector of amino acid principal properties. Considering that various AADs have been proposed over the past decades and new AADs are still emerging today, we herein query the following: is it necessary to develop so many AADs and do we need to continuously develop more new AADs? In this study, we exhaustively collect 80 published AADs and comprehensively evaluate their modeling performance (including fitting ability, internal stability, and predictive power) on 8 QSAR-oriented peptide sample sets (QPSs) by employing 2 sophisticated machine learning methods (MLMs), totally building and systematically comparing 1280 (80 AADs × 8 QPSs × 2 MLMs) peptide QSAR models. The following is revealed: (i) None of the AADs can work best on all or most peptide sets; an AAD usually performs well for some peptides but badly for others. (ii) Modeling performance is primarily determined by the peptide samples and then the MLMs used, while AADs have only a moderate influence on the performance. (iii) There is no essential difference between the modeling performances of different AAD types (physiochemical, topological, 3D-structural, etc.). (iv) Two random descriptors, which are separately generated randomly in standard normal distribution N(0, 1) and uniform distribution U(−1, +1), do not perform significantly worse than these carefully developed AADs. (v) A secondary descriptor, which carries major information involved in the 80 (primary) AADs, does not perform significantly better than these AADs. Overall, we conclude that since there are various AADs available to date and they already cover numerous amino acid properties, further development of new AADs is not an essential choice to improve peptide QSAR modeling; the traditional AAD methodology is believed to have almost reached the theoretical limit nowadays. In addition, the AADs are more likely to be a vector symbol but not informative data; they are utilized to mark and distinguish the 20 amino acids but do not really bring much original property information to these amino acids.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01370?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01370</a>.(Figure S1) Systematic histogram of QSAR metrics. (Figure S2) Systematic histogram of the mean ± s.e. values of QSAR metrics. (Figure S3) Systematic pairwise Euclidean distance between the mean values of QSAR metrics. (Table S1) Full list of 80 AADs. (Tables S2–S9) Full list of 8 QSAR-oriented peptide sample sets (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01370/suppl_file/ci0c01370_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Comprehensive Comparison of Eight Statistical Modelling Methods Used in Quantitative Structure-Retention Relationship Studies for Liquid Chromatographic Retention Times of Peptides Generated by Protease Digestion of the Escherichia Coli Proteome

Prediction of Retention Times for a Large Set of Pesticides Based on Improved Gene Expression Programming

Machine Learning Assisted Qsar Analysis to Predict Protein Adsorption Capacities on Mixed-Mode Resins

Prediction of Peptide Retention in RP-LC

Quantitative Structure Retention-Relationship Modeling: Towards an Innovative General-Purpose Strategy

Simultaneous effect of different chromatographic conditions on the chromatographic retention of pentapeptide derivatives (HGRFG and NPNPT)

Molecular descriptor subset selection in theoretical peptide quantitative structure-retention relationship model development using nature-inspired optimization algorithms

Prediction of Protein 13cα NMR Chemical Shifts Using a Combination Scheme of Statistical Modeling and Quantum-Mechanical Analysis

Kernel-Based, Partial Least Squares Quantitative Structure-Retention Relationship Model for UPLC Retention Time Prediction: A Useful Tool for Metabolite Identification

Quantitative Structure-Retention Relationship for Reliable Metabolite Identification and Quantification in Metabolomics Using Ion-Pair Reversed-Phase Chromatography Coupled with Tandem Mass Spectrometry.

Peptide Selection for Accurate Targeted Protein Quantification Via a Dimethylation High-Resolution Mass Spectrum Strategy with a Peptide Release Kinetic Model

Peptide Retention Time Prediction for Electrostatic Repulsion-Hydrophilic Interaction Chromatography

Structure Driven Prediction of Chromatographic Retention Times: Applications to Pharmaceutical Analysis

Systematic Comparison and Comprehensive Evaluation of 80 Amino Acid Descriptors in Peptide QSAR Modeling

Sequence-Specific Model for Peptide Retention Time Prediction in Strong Cation Exchange Chromatography

Systematic Modeling, Prediction, and Comparison of Domain–Peptide Affinities: Does it Work Effectively With the Peptide QSAR Methodology?

Prediction of Ion Drift Times for a Proteome-Wide Peptide Set Using Partial Least Squares Regression, Least-Squares Support Vector Machine and Gaussian Process

Application of a peptide retention time prediction model in validation of peptide identification

Development of QSAR-Improved Statistical Potential for the Structure-Based Analysis of ProteinPeptide Binding Affinities

Machine Learning Techniques for the Prediction of the Peptide Mobility in Capillary Zone Electrophoresis

Improved LC-MS identification of short homologous peptides using sequence-specific retention time predictors