Sign in
BioinformaticsbioRxiv
Preprint

Peptide Secondary Structure Prediction using Evolutionary Information

Harinder SinghiD, Sandeep SinghiD, Gajendra P. S. RaghavaiD

Abstract

BACKGROUNDIn the past, large numbers of methods have been developed for predicting secondary structure of proteins. Best of authors knowledge no method has been specifically developed for predicting secondary structure of peptides. We analyzed secondary structure of peptides and proteins; it was observed that same peptide in protein adopt different secondary structures. Considering the wide application of peptides in therapeutic market, we made attempt to develop a method called PEP2D for predicting secondary structure of peptides. RESULTSIn this study, 3107 unique peptides have been used to train, test and evaluate peptide secondary structure prediction models. It was observed that regular secondary structure content (e.g., helix, beta-sheet) increased with length of peptides. Firstly, models based on various machine-learning techniques have been developed using binary profile of peptides and achieved maximum overall accuracy (Q3) 79.5%. The performance of models further improved from 79.5% to 83.5% using evolutionary information in the form of PSSM profile. We also evaluate performance of protein secondary structure prediction method PSIPRED on our dataset and achieved maximum accuracy 76.9%; particularly poor (Q3 71.4%) for small peptides having length less than 10 residues. Overall, PEP2D has better prediction of beta-sheets (Q3 74%) and coil region (Q3 87%) of peptides as compare to PSIPRED (Q3 54.4% for beta-sheet and Q3 77.9% for coil). We also measure performance of PSIPRED and PEP2D in terms of segment overlap (SOV); achieved 69.3 and 76.7 respectively. CONCLUSIONOur observations indicate that there is a need of developing separate method for predicting secondary structure of peptides. It was also observed that models based on PSSM profile perform poor on small peptides in comparison to long peptides. Based on our study, we developed method for predicting secondary structure of peptides. In order to provide service to user, a webserver/standalone has been developed (https://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/pep2d/).

PDFDOI
Structured summary ↓

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers

Abstract summary

Verified abstract synthesis

Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 18 Oct 2026 · from the abstract · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

PEP2D predicts peptide secondary structure from PSSM evolutionary profiles, reaching Q3 83.5% on 3107 peptides against 76.9% for the protein-trained PSIPRED; a webserver is provided.

Secondary structure predictors have been built for proteins, and the same peptide sequence can adopt different structures depending on the protein it sits in, so their reliability on short peptides is unclear. With peptides being pursued as therapeutics, the authors argue a predictor trained on peptides themselves is needed.

Key results

  1. ShownFeeding evolutionary information rather than sequence alone lifted peptide secondary structure accuracy.

    Machine-learning models built on binary profiles of the peptide reached overall Q3 79.5%; switching the input to PSSM profiles raised this to 83.5%, on a set of 3107 unique peptides used for training, testing and evaluation. · Abstract

  2. ShownOn the same peptide dataset PEP2D scored higher than PSIPRED, a predictor built for proteins, overall and for both beta-sheet and coil; PSIPRED was particularly poor on peptides shorter than 10 residues.

    PSIPRED reached at most Q3 76.9% overall and only 71.4% for peptides shorter than 10 residues; per-class, PEP2D gave Q3 74% for beta-sheet and 87% for coil against PSIPRED's 54.4% and 77.9%, with segment overlap (SOV) 76.7 versus 69.3. · Abstract

  3. SuggestedLonger peptides carried more regular secondary structure (helix, beta-sheet), and PSSM-based models did worse on short peptides than on long ones.

    Reported as observations over the 3107-peptide set; apart from PSIPRED's Q3 71.4% below 10 residues, no accuracies by length band or structure-content figures are given. · Abstract

Methods, data and reproducibility

Peptide secondary structure predictors trained on 3107 unique peptides with several machine-learning techniques, taking either a binary profile of the peptide sequence or a PSSM evolutionary profile as input. Performance was measured by overall Q3, per-class Q3 and segment overlap, and compared with the protein predictor PSIPRED run on the same peptides.

  • unique peptides used to train, test and evaluate the secondary structure models · n = 3107
Methods & tools
PEP2D, PSIPRED, PSSM profiles
Reproducibility gaps
A webserver and standalone are offered at the address given; no source repository, licence or accession for the peptide dataset is named in the abstract.
Limitations (3)
  • The authors note that models using PSSM profiles perform poorly on small peptides compared with longer ones. · stated by the authors
  • PSIPRED was trained on proteins and applied here to peptides, whereas PEP2D was trained on this peptide set, so part of the margin reflects the match between training and test data rather than the algorithm. · noted in this summary
  • The abstract does not say how the 3107 peptides were split for training and evaluation, or whether sequence redundancy was removed, so the reported accuracies may be optimistic. · noted in this summary

Who should read:Read this if you predict structure for short peptides and need to judge whether protein-trained tools such as PSIPRED suffice or a peptide-specific model is worth adopting.

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.