ArticleMolecular systems biology2025
Predicting natural variation in the yeast phenotypic landscape with machine learning.
Article in Molecular systems biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population-scale chemical response revealed by a barcoded yeast collection.Nature communications · 2026Article
- From one genome to thousands, and beyond.FEMS yeast research · 2026Review
- Uncorking wine yeast genomics from grape to glass.FEMS yeast research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most organismal traits result from the complex interplay of many genetic and environmental factors, making their prediction difficult. Here, we used machine learning (ML) models to explore phenotype predictions for 223 traits measured across 1011 genome-sequenced Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains isolated worldwide. We benchmarked a ML pipeline with multiple linear and non-linear models to predict phenotypes from genotypes and gene expression, and determined gradient boosting machines as the best-performing model. Gene function disruption scores and gene presence/absence emerged as best predictors, suggesting a considerable contribution of the accessory genome in controlling phenotypes. The prediction accuracy broadly varied among phenotypes, with stress resistance being easier to predict compared to growth across nutrients. ML identified relevant genomic features linked to phenotypes, including high-impact variants with established relationships to phenotypes, despite these being rare in the population. Near-perfect accuracies were achieved when other phenomics data mostly in similar conditions were used, suggesting that useful information can be conveyed across phenotypes. Overall, our study underscores the power of ML to interpret the functional outcome of genetic variants.
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.