ArticleGenome research2025
Iterative improvement of deep learning models using synthetic regulatory genomics.
Article in Genome research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic Regulatory Genomics.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2026Review
- ExoShorkie: predicting RNA-seq coverage of exogenous genomes in yeast by transfer learning.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Toward generalizable and interpretable AI in regulatory genomics.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep learning models can accurately reconstruct genome-wide epigenetic tracks from the reference genome sequence alone. But it is unclear what predictive power they have on sequence diverging from the reference, such as disease- and trait-associated variants or engineered sequences. Recent work has applied synthetic regulatory genomics to characterized dozens of deletions, inversions, and rearrangements of DNase I hypersensitive sites (DHSs). Here, we use the state-of-the-art model Enformer to predict DNA accessibility and RNA transcription across these engineered sequences when delivered at their endogenous loci. At a high level, we observe a good correlation between accessibility predicted by Enformer and experimental data. But model performance is best for sequences that more resembled the reference, such as single deletions or combinations of multiple DHSs. Predictive power is poorer for rearrangements affecting DHS order or orientation. We use these data to fine-tune Enformer, yielding significant reduction in prediction error. We show that this fine-tuning retains strong predictive performance for other tracks. Our results show that current deep learning models perform poorly when presented with novel sequences diverging in certain critical features from their training set. Thus, an iterative approach incorporating profiling of synthetic constructs can improve model generalizability and ultimately enable functional classification of regulatory variants identified by population studies.
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.