Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42158023›Full record

ArticleBio-protocol2026

Workflow for Fine-Tuning and Evaluating DNA Language Models for Specific Genomics Issues.

Kazuki Nakamae, Hidemasa Bono

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bio-protocol, 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

2 authors.

Kazuki NakamaePtBio Inc., Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan.
Hidemasa BonoGenome Editing Innovation Center, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA language models, such as DNABERT-2, have recently enabled the accurate prediction of functional sequence elements across species. However, the practical, protocol-style steps needed to transform these resources into training datasets, fine-tune the official DNABERT-2 model, and evaluate classifier performance have not been explicitly described. Herein, we present a step-by-step computational protocol for preparing training data, fine-tuning DNABERT-2, and evaluating sequence-level binary classifiers using readily available command-line tools. The protocol has been demonstrated using RNA off-target sites induced by cytosine base editors, detected by our PiCTURE pipeline from RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data, and extended to core promoter prediction using the EPDnew database. We describe how to derive positive and negative sequence sets into DNABERT-2 compatible datasets, and fine-tune the official pretrained model of DNABERT-2 using the datasets. We also demonstrate how to compute the standard performance metrics and compare the model outputs with the baselines. This protocol will help researchers adapt DNA foundation models to new genomic tasks, including the safety assessment of genome editing tools and the functional annotation of regulatory sequences. Key features • A step-by-step pipeline has been provided for preparing labeled DNA sequence datasets for DNABERT-2 fine-tuning. • The reproducibility of the official DNABERT-2 implementation and scripts for binary classification is shown. • Application of PiCTURE-derived C-to-U (T) substitution sites for off-target RNA risk prediction. • An extension to core promoter prediction using promoter datasets from EPDnew is described.

Indexed as

Cytosine base editorDeep learningDNABERT-2DNA language modelEPDnewFine-tuningPromoterRNA off-target

Identifiers

PMID42158023
PMCPMC13180710

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.