Molecular fingerprints are strong models for peptide function prediction

Jakub Adamczyk, Piotr Ludynia, Wojciech Czech

Main figure for Molecular fingerprints are strong models for peptide function prediction

Abstract

Abstract Motivation Understanding peptide properties is often assumed to require modeling long-range molecular interactions, motivating complex graph neural networks and pretrained transformers. Whether such long-range dependencies are essential remains unclear. We investigate if simple, domain-specific molecular fingerprints can capture peptide function without these assumptions. Atomic-level representations aim to provide richer information than purely sequence-based models and better efficiency than structural ones. Results Across 132 datasets, including LRGB and five additional peptide benchmarks, models using count-based ECFP, Topological Torsion, and RDKit fingerprints with LightGBM achieve state-of-the-art accuracy. Despite encoding only short-range molecular features, these models outperform GNNs and transformer-based approaches. Control experiments confirm that fingerprints, though inherently local, suffice for robust peptide property prediction. Our results challenge the presumed necessity of long-range interaction modeling and highlight molecular fingerprints as efficient, interpretable, and lightweight alternatives. Supplementary information All code and data are available on GitHub and Zenodo: https://github.com/scikit-fingerprints/peptides_molecular_fingerprints_classification https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19388783

Proposed method: count-based molecular fingerprints

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #31 30 places worse
0.2421 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #31 30 places worse
paper 0.2460 ±0.0007
paper 0.2460 ±0.0007 Δ today 0.0039
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
7
GatedGCN
actual #7 vs paper #57 50 places worse
0.2431 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #57 50 places worse
paper 0.2477 ±0.0009
paper 0.2477 ±0.0009 Δ today 0.0046
10
count-based molecular fingerprints
0.2432
This paper
13
TT
0.2438
This paper
15
S^2GCN
0.2447 ±0.0032
This paper
19
Graph ViT
0.2449 ±0.0016
This paper
27
GRED
actual #27 vs paper #27
0.2455 ±0.0013
actual #27 vs paper #27
paper 0.2455 ±0.0013
paper 0.2455 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0048
28
HDSE
0.2457 ±0.0013
This paper
31
RDKit
0.2459
This paper
32
GRIT
0.2460 ±0.0012
This paper
49
GINE
0.2473 ±0.0017
This paper
87
GraphGPS
0.2500 ±0.0005
This paper
93
CRaWl
0.2506 ±0.0022
This paper
114
Transformer
0.2529 ±0.0016
This paper
115
DRew
0.2536 ±0.0015
This paper
124
SAN
0.2545 ±0.0012
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008

Peptides-func

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports AUPRC; the dataset default is AP. Values below use AUPRC only.

Sorted by AUPRC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAUPRC ↑Paper
1
count-based molecular fingerprints
0.7460
This paper
2
TT
0.7318
This paper
3
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
This paper
4
RDKit
0.7311
This paper
5
HDSE
0.7156 ±0.0058
This paper
6
DRew
0.7150 ±0.0044
This paper
7
GRED
0.7133 ±0.0011
This paper
8
CRaWl
0.7074 ±0.0032
This paper
9
GRIT
0.6988 ±0.0082
This paper
10
Graph ViT
0.6942 ±0.0075
This paper
11
GCN
0.6860 ±0.0050
This paper
12
GatedGCN
0.6765 ±0.0047
This paper
13
GINE
0.6621 ±0.0067
This paper
14
GraphGPS
0.6535 ±0.0041
This paper
15
MOLTOP
0.6459 ±0.0005
This paper
16
SAN
0.6439 ±0.0075
This paper
17
Transformer
0.6326 ±0.0126
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere