Back

Accurate Prediction Of Asparagine Deamidation In Biologics Using Advanced Machine Learning Models

Ahmed, S.; Swope, N.; Stanev, V.; Hofele, R.; WuDunn, D.; Jain, R.; Delmar, J.; Pouryahya, M.

2026-01-07 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.01.06.697962 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The spontaneous deamidation of asparagine residues remains a major obstacle to the stability and efficacy of protein therapeutics. Currently available models in the literature for predicting deamidation liabilities can suffer from limited generalizability, likely due to biases such as sequence similarity within datasets. In this study, we built machine learning models using protein language models (e.g., ESM2) and graph neural networks (GNNs), trained on a comprehensive dataset of 591 asparagine sites from over 105 protein molecules. To address the critical issue of data leakage, we implemented a peptide grouping strategy yielding more accurate estimates of model performance for novel deamidation sites. Our analysis shows that, when sequence similarity bias is controlled, protein language models match traditional feature-based models that use amino acid composition, k-mers, PSSMs, and predicted secondary structure/solvent accessibility, while offering substantial computational advantages. Additionally, our GNN-based pipeline further increases prediction accuracy by up to 8% compared to language model-only tools and delivers a 15-25% improvement over motif-based approaches. This methodological framework enables more reliable and rapid in-silico prediction of deamidation liabilities, potentially reducing costly late-stage interventions in protein therapeutic development and is generalizable to the modeling of additional protein post-translational modifications.

Published in Briefings in Bioinformatics (predicted rank #7) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.