ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Benchmarking DNA large language models on quadruplexes.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cfDNA fragmentomics-based machine learning model for predicting treatment response and recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- Advancing bioinformatics with language models: components, applications, and perspectives.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- BlendSplice: A Frequency-Blended Generative Framework forComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- AI-driven discovery in protein science for immunology and infectious disease research.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- vir2vec: A Viral Genome-Wide Viral Embedding.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) in genomics have successfully predicted various functional genomic elements. While their performance is typically evaluated using genomic benchmark datasets, it remains unclear which LLM is best suited for specific downstream tasks, particularly for generating whole-genome annotations. Current LLMs in genomics fall into three main categories: transformer-based models, long convolution-based models, and state-space models (SSMs). In this study, we benchmarked three different types of LLM architectures for generating whole-genome maps of G-quadruplexes (GQ), a type of flipons, or non-B DNA structures, characterized by distinctive patterns and functional roles in diverse regulatory contexts. Although GQ forms from folding guanosine residues into tetrads, the computational task is challenging as the bases involved may be on different strands, separated by a large number of nucleotides, or made from RNA rather than DNA. All LLMs performed comparably well, with DNABERT-2 and HyenaDNA achieving superior results based on F1 and MCC. Analysis of whole-genome annotations revealed that HyenaDNA recovered more quadruplexes in distal enhancers and intronic regions. The models were better suited to detecting large GQ arrays that likely contribute to the nuclear condensates involved in gene transcription and chromosomal scaffolds. HyenaDNA and Caduceus formed a separate grouping in the generated de novo quadruplexes, while transformer-based models clustered together. Overall, our findings suggest that different types of LLMs complement each other. Genomic architectures with varying context lengths can detect distinct functional regulatory elements, underscoring the importance of selecting the appropriate model based on the specific genomic task. The code and data underlying this article are available at https://github.com/powidla/G4s-FMs.
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.