ReviewThe Journal of biological chemistry2026
Epistasis: Just say no!
Review in The Journal of biological chemistry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epistasis, where the effect of a mutation depends on other mutations, has been observed in virtually every quantitative biochemical feature examined. Despite its ubiquity, epistasis is often difficult to explain mechanistically. Its interpretation is thus often limited to phenomenological descriptions of synergy or antagonism. Here, we argue that epistasis quantifies the mismatch between experimental observations and a model for how mutations should sum together. Put differently: it is a fit residual. And like any fit residual, the presence of epistasis is a call to action, not an interesting observation in itself. It signals that the model is inadequate, not (necessarily) that the mutations physically interact. We propose that biochemists and biophysicists should pivot away from analyzing epistasis and into fitting mechanistic models that connect genotype to phenotype. Such models describe the effects of mutations as perturbations to underlying biochemical parameters-stability, binding affinity, catalytic rate-and combine those perturbations on mechanistically appropriate scales. Compared to a standard epistasis analysis, this approach reduces the number of free parameters, improves extrapolative power, and yields interpretable insights into structure-function relationships. We illustrate how this framework works in practice with studies covering a broad range of molecular systems and biochemically relevant scales. By reframing epistasis as a starting point rather than as a final observation, biochemists are uniquely positioned to build predictive models of mutational effects grounded in the physical principles governing biomolecular function.
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.