ArticleGenome biology2024
Current genomic deep learning models display decreased performance in cell type-specific accessible regions.
Article in Genome biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Base-pair resolution conservation data improves cell type specific sequence-to-expression prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Decoding the sequence determinants of locus-specific DNA methylation across human tissues.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Toward generalizable and interpretable AI in regulatory genomics.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Evaluating sequence-to-function deep learning models for ancestry-stratified regulatory variant effect prediction using multi-ancestry blood eQTLs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Challenges in predicting chromatin accessibility differences between species.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Practical utility of sequence-to-omics models for improving the reproducibility of genetic fine-mapping.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The performance of genetic-constraint metrics varies significantly across the human noncoding genome.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Refining sequence-to-activity models by increasing model resolution.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Challenges in Predicting Chromatin Accessibility Differences between Species.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Iterative improvement of deep learning models using synthetic regulatory genomics.Genome research · 2025Article
- IceQream: Quantitative chromosome accessibility analysis using physical TF models.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Predicting gene expression from DNA sequence using deep learning models.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025Review
- Programming human cell type-specific gene expression via an atlas of AI-designed enhancers.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Integrating Single-Molecule Sequencing and Deep Learning to Predict Haplotype-Specific 3D Chromatin Organization in a Mendelian Condition.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Perspective on recent developments and challenges in regulatory and systems genomics.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Review
- Current genomic deep learning models display decreased performance in cell type-specific accessible regions.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Current genomic deep learning models display decreased performance in cell type specific accessible regions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA number of deep learning models have been developed to predict epigenetic features such as chromatin accessibility from DNA sequence. Model evaluations commonly report performance genome-wide; however, cis regulatory elements (CREs), which play critical roles in gene regulation, make up only a small fraction of the genome. Furthermore, cell type-specific CREs contain a large proportion of complex disease heritability.
resultsWe evaluate genomic deep learning models in chromatin accessibility regions with varying degrees of cell type specificity. We assess two modeling directions in the field: general purpose models trained across thousands of outputs (cell types and epigenetic marks) and models tailored to specific tissues and tasks. We find that the accuracy of genomic deep learning models, including two state-of-the-art general purpose models-Enformer and Sei-varies across the genome and is reduced in cell type-specific accessible regions. Using accessibility models trained on cell types from specific tissues, we find that increasing model capacity to learn cell type-specific regulatory syntax-through single-task learning or high capacity multi-task models-can improve performance in cell type-specific accessible regions. We also observe that improving reference sequence predictions does not consistently improve variant effect predictions, indicating that novel strategies are needed to improve performance on variants.
conclusionsOur results provide a new perspective on the performance of genomic deep learning models, showing that performance varies across the genome and is particularly reduced in cell type-specific accessible regions. We also identify strategies to maximize performance in cell type-specific accessible regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.