ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2026
Optimizing genomic language models for promoter prediction: a comparative study of tokenization and cross-species learning.
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to genomic tasks, yet core challenges remain concerning tokenization, evaluation, and data scarcity. This study focuses on promoter classification and systematically evaluates four tokenization methods: non-overlapping 6-mer, overlapping 6-mer, Byte Pair Encoding (BPE), and WordPiece (WPC). We show that the commonly used k-mer approach, specifically the non-overlapping variant, outperforms BPE and WPC across eight organisms, challenging assumptions derived from natural language processing. To ensure robustness, we evaluated performance under two distinct negative data strategies: positive-promoter-shuffled and random-non-promoter-fragments. Using a positional SHAP framework, we demonstrate that the model learns biologically plausible positional patterns rather than exploiting artifacts from these negative data generation processes. Furthermore, evolutionary-informed transfer learning experiments and external validation on an unseen organism reveal that training on phylogenetically related species significantly improves performance, particularly in low-data regimes. These findings underscore the significant impact of tokenization and negative data design, providing practical guidance for refining genomic classifiers.
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.