Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42124660›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026

keju: powerful and accurate inference in Massively Parallel Reporter Assays.

Albert Xue, Adam M Zahm, Justin G English, Sriram Sankararaman, Harold Pimentel

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Albert XueBioinformatics Interdepartmental Program, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1325-5753
Adam M ZahmDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Justin G EnglishDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Sriram SankararamanDepartment of Computer Science, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Harold PimentelDepartment of Computer Science, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8556-2499

Funding

Training Grant in Genomic Analysis and InterpretationT32HG002536 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Valerie A Arboleda, Harold Pimentel · 2002 to 2026
$8.6M
Directed Evolution of Cell-Type Specific On-Demand Signaling Control SystemsDP2GM146247 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ENGLISH, JUSTIN G. · 2021 to 2024
$2.3M
Expressive and scalable statistical models for genomic and biomedical dataR35GM153406 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Sriram Sankararaman · 2024 to 2026
$1.0M
Statistical Approaches to Unlock Protein Function from Deep Mutational ScansR35GM160065 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Harold Pimentel · 2025 to 2026
$842k
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG002536NIGMS NIH HHS DP2 GM146247NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM153406NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM160065
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42124660
PMCPMC13160177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.