Back

Retention, not flux: endpoint confounding caps computational prediction of peptide skin penetration, with a delivery-aware reframing

Komianos, N.; Prakash, P.

2026-06-29 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.25.734657 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Bioactive peptides are now central to cosmetic and dermatological actives, yet predicting whether a given sequence will reach its site of action in skin remains unsolved. We contend that the dominant framing, predicting a single binary "skin permeability" label from sequence, is ill-posed, and that this, rather than a shortage of modelling power, explains the field's stalled predictive performance. The scope of the claim is narrow: barrier-crossing propensity is a legitimate, learnable function of molecular structure, whereas the vehicle- and endpoint-agnostic binary label that the literature supplies is not. We support this with a first-principles analysis and a study of public-source data. First, the experimental endpoint most commonly reported, transdermal flux into a diffusion-cell receptor compartment (OECD Test Guideline 428), conflates two opposite outcomes (genuine deep delivery and undesired systemic transport) and is, for a cosmetic active, frequently a failure signal rather than a success signal. That receptor flux is an imperfect measure of cutaneous bioavailability is long established in dermatopharmacokinetics; our contribution is to show that the same confound, inherited through scraped labels, is what caps machine learning from sequence. Second, reported "permeability" is a property of the sequence x delivery-vehicle x measurement-compartment triad, two terms of which are usually unrecorded. Third, on public-source data, a physicochemical intrinsic-permeability estimate (Potts-Guy) carries no positive predictive signal for scraped penetration labels (grouped AUC 0.45, 95% CI 0.40-0.51); sequence-only classifiers plateau in the mid-0.70s with diminishing returns as labels accumulate (AUC 0.70-0.77); and the same descriptor pipeline on a clean single-endpoint membrane dataset scores materially higher (AUC 0.83, non-overlapping CI). Our proposed reframing separates barrier-crossing (data-driven, sequence-level) from depth-and-retention (physics-driven, delivery-aware) and treats intrinsic transdermal flux as a regulatory risk axis; we close by proposing a triad-annotated reporting schema and a seed benchmark.

Matching journals

The top 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 4%
8.1%
2
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 23%
6.9%
3
Communications Chemistry
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
5
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
238 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.2%
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.5%
7
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
8
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.3%
9
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
10
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 21%
2.5%
11
PNAS Nexus
159 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
12
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
50% of probability mass above
13
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.8%
14
Biomaterials
84 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
15
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.8%
16
Journal of Cheminformatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
17
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.5%
18
mAbs
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
19
Nature Biotechnology
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
21
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
22
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
23
European Respiratory Journal
59 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
24
British Journal of Anaesthesia
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
25
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
26
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
28
Nature Machine Intelligence
70 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
29
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
30
Frontiers in Pharmacology
111 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%