Computational benchmark reveals severe performance inflation in lysine acetylation predictors due to sequence redundancy, highlighting the need for rigorous independent testing.
Lysine acetylation is a pervasive post-translational modification with critical regulatory roles, yet computational prediction of acetylation sites remains hampered by unreliable benchmarking practices including dataset redundancy and non-independent test set evaluation. We report a systematic investigation demonstrating that three independent sources of metric inflation, including near-ubiquitous sequence redundancy, non-independent test sets, and distribution-locked dimensionality reduction collectively reduced an apparent accuracy of 99.38% to a true cross-database AUC of 0.523, indistinguishable from random classification. Applying CD-HIT at 40% pairwise sequence identity to a dbPTM-derived acetylation dataset, we found that 62.7% of positive and 90.3% of negative sequences are redundant, a level not previously quantified for this task. A comprehensive cross-database benchmark evaluating seven representation strategies (CKSAAP, BLOSUM62, one-hot, ESM-2, ProtBERT, ESM-1v mean-pool, and ESM-1v lysine-position) across two training databases reveals a consistent generalisation failure: within-database cross-validation AUC values of 0.815–0.867 collapse to 0.582–0.607 on a truly independent benchmark. Logistic regression, random forest, and neural network classifiers achieve statistically indistinguishable cross-database performance on identical features, establishing that this failure is driven by feature representations rather than classifier architecture. DeepAcet, using PSSM features computed via PSI-BLAST against a database-independent evolutionary reference, achieves AUC 0.841, substantially exceeding all PLM-based methods trained on identical data (best: AUC 0.705). We release AcetylBench, a rigorously deduplicated benchmark comprising 27,182 positive and 7063 negative sequences, to enable reliable evaluation of future acetylation predictors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ashraf et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: