ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
keju: powerful and accurate inference in Massively Parallel Reporter Assays.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Massively Parallel Reporter Assays (MPRAs) interrogate the regulatory function of thousands of designed genetic elements in parallel through linked DNA and RNA readouts using an engineered construct and attached minimal reporter. Given the complexity of MPRA experimental designs, several different sources of uncertainty complicate inference. We show that previous methods do not account for substantial differences in uncertainty levels between the DNA and RNA counts and between batches. Accordingly, we present keju, a hierarchical statistical model that estimates candidate transcription rate, differential activity between conditions, and effects from promoter composition for MPRA data. To maximize statistical power and improve false positive rate control, keju conditions on the DNA counts to model batch-specific and modality-specific uncertainty in the RNA counts. keju shows vastly improved sensitivity (59%) in simulations compared to previous methods (31% for MPRAnalyze and 9% for BCalm), and also has lower, more robust false positive rates, calling only 6.8% of unlabeled negative controls significant in real data (compared to 34% for MPRAnalyze and 12% for BCalm).
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.