ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2026
Gene regulatory networks: from correlative models to causal explanations.
Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2026. 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.
- Single-cell multimodal profiling of pan-cancer cell lines uncovers gene regulatory principles underlying intrinsic cell states and environmental features.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Human genetics across levels of biological organization.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Endogenous Network Modeling Reveals Mechanisms of Repair Schwann Cell Decline and Potential Recovery Targets.Biology · 2026Article
- Single-cell multimodal profiling of pan-cancer cell lines uncovers gene regulatory principles underlying intrinsic cell states and environmental features.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) explain how the genome controls cellular behaviour and tissue morphogenesis, serving to connect molecular mechanism to functional output. Single-cell technologies now provide descriptions of these networks with unprecedented detail, but this advance has also revealed gene regulatory systems that are too complex for our existing conceptual frameworks. GRNs, which should provide mechanistic explanations, are increasingly reduced to statistical correlations - 'hairballs' that fail to capture molecular causation. Here, we explore why this dilemma exists and propose a path forward. We argue that methods in 'representation learning' can be used to model GRNs, without needing to capture every molecular detail. For this framework, we advocate three linked principles: models must be inherently mechanistic, with structures grounded in cellular and evolutionary biology; molecular principles and constraints must be used to reduce the solution space for learning GRN models; and more sophisticated forms of experimental perturbation and synthetic biological engineering are needed to train models and test predictions. By reimagining GRNs through these principles, we can bridge the gap from data abundance to new conceptual understanding.
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.