Back

Structure-aware geometric graph learning for modeling protease-substrate specificity at scale

Guo, X.; Bi, Y.; Ran, Z.; Pan, T.; Sun, H.; Hao, Y.; Jia, R.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Q.; Kurgan, L.; Song, J.; Li, F.

2026-04-10 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.04.08.717168 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Protease-substrate specificity is central to cellular regulation and disease pathogenesis, and accurately modeling its structural determinants remains challenging. Substrate recognition is governed by spatial constraints and higher-order relationships that extend beyond local sequence motifs. Most computational approaches rely predominantly on motif-centric or sequence-based representations, limiting their ability to capture the geometric and relational structure underlying enzymatic specificity. Here, we introduce OmniCleave, a structure-aware geometric graph learning framework for modeling protease-substrate specificity at scale. OmniCleave is trained on 57,278 structure-informed protease-substrate pairs derived from 9,651 substrates spanning over 100 proteases across six distinct families. The framework integrates multi-scale structural graphs with higher-order protease relational topology, explicitly encoding spatial context and inter-protease dependencies within a unified geometric representation. This formulation moves beyond local pattern recognition and enables transferable modelling across six protease families. Across large-scale benchmarks, the framework consistently outperforms existing approaches and reveals interpretable geometric determinants underlying substrate recognition. Experimental validation confirms three novel caspase-3 substrates and 21 cleavage sites predicted by OmniCleave, supporting the biological relevance of the learned representations. Together, OmniCleave provides a scalable geometric framework for modeling protease-substrate specificity, with practical utility for systematic analysis of protease biology.

Matching journals

The top 7 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.