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.

Gaussian process: an alternative approach for QSAM modeling of peptides

Quantitative Structure–activity Relationship: Promising Advances in Drug Discovery Platforms

Quantitative Sequence-Activity Model (qsam): Applying Qsar Strategy to Model and Predict Bioactivity and Function of Peptides, Proteins and Nucleic Acids

Modeling and Prediction of Binding Affinities Between the Human Amphiphysin SH3 Domain and Its Peptide Ligands Using Genetic Algorithm‐gaussian Processes

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

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

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

Application of quantitative structure-activity relationship to food-derived peptides: Methods, situations, challenges and prospects

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

Linear-Scaling Kernels for Protein Sequences and Small Molecules Outperform Deep Learning While Providing Uncertainty Quantitation and Improved Interpretability

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

QSPR Analysis of Amino Acid Conjugates of Jasmonic Acid

Bioprocess modeling using genetic programming based on a double penalty strategy

Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 9. Prediction reliability of binding affinities and binding poses for protein-peptide complexes

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

Quantitative structure/activity relationship modelling of pharmacokinetic properties using genetic algorithm-combined partial least squares method

Do we need different machine learning algorithms for QSAR modeling? A comprehensive assessment of 16 machine learning algorithms on 14 QSAR data sets

Side-chain Conformational Space Analysis (SCSA): A Multi Conformation-Based QSAR Approach for Modeling and Prediction of Protein–peptide Binding Affinities

Non-Hemolytic Peptide Classification Using A Quantum Support Vector Machine

Semisupervised Gaussian Process for Automated Enzyme Search