Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40360798›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2025

Predicting gene expression from DNA sequence using deep learning models.

Lucía Barbadilla-Martínez, Noud Klaassen, Bas van Steensel, Jeroen de Ridder

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. G-Quadruplexes: Structural Diversity and Emerging Roles in Biomolecular Condensation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Designing DNA With Tunable Regulatory Activity Using Discrete Diffusion.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lucía Barbadilla-MartínezOncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Noud KlaassenOncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-4904-0654
Bas van SteenselOncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands. b.v.steensel@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0284-0404
Jeroen de RidderOncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands. J.deRidder-4@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0828-3477

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcription of genes is regulated by DNA elements such as promoters and enhancers, the activity of which are in turn controlled by many transcription factors. Owing to the highly complex combinatorial logic involved, it has been difficult to construct computational models that predict gene activity from DNA sequence. Recent advances in deep learning techniques applied to data from epigenome mapping and high-throughput reporter assays have made substantial progress towards addressing this complexity. Such models can capture the regulatory grammar with remarkable accuracy and show great promise in predicting the effects of non-coding variants, uncovering detailed molecular mechanisms of gene regulation and designing synthetic regulatory elements for biotechnology. Here, we discuss the principles of these approaches, the types of training data sets that are available and the strengths and limitations of different approaches.

Indexed as

Deep LearningGene Expression RegulationSequence Analysis, DNAAnimalsComputational BiologyHumansModels, GeneticPromoter Regions, Genetic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.