Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

RulePep: Interpretable ESM-Guided Neural-Symbolic Peptide Classification

Created on 08 Jul 2026

Authors

Midjani, F., Ghelich, R., Keshtkar, F. Z., Malekpour, M., Lee, H.

Abstract

Peptides are increasingly explored as therapeutic candidates, delivery vectors, and functional biomolecules, but experimental screening of peptide activity and safety remains costly because the sequence space is vast and small sequence changes can alter functionality. Computational peptide classification can therefore help prioritize candidates. However, many protein-language-model-based classifiers achieve strong performance using opaque prediction heads, making it difficult to determine which learned evidence supports or opposes a prediction. We present RulePep, an ESM-2-guided neural-symbolic classifier for peptide-function prediction. RulePep maps frozen ESM-2 sequence representation to learned latent predicates, polarity-constrained differentiable rules, and an additive symbolic logit whose components can be inspected at the case level. We evaluate RulePep on three biologically distinct peptide classification tasks: blood-brain barrier penetration, hemolytic potency, and anticancer activity. On the BBPpredict, HemoPI3, and AntiCP 2.0 alternate benchmark datasets, RulePep achieved AUROC/MCC values of 0.8869/0.6850, 0.9155/0.6820, and 0.9765/0.8633, respectively. Ablation experiments supported the contributions of multi-layer representation pooling, rule polarity, mined-rule initialization, symbolic capacity, and rule-derived aggregation. RulePep combines competitive predictive performance with additive logit reconstruction, rule-level evidence reporting, and predicate-suppression auditing, providing a transparent sequence-based framework for peptide candidate prioritization.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 08 Jul 2026.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 2
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement