ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
Artificial Intelligence for Plant Gene Regulatory Networks.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) are the maps that plant biologists most want to draw, with arrows pointing from transcription factors to the genes they control, explaining how plants develop and respond to the environment. Since experimental validation of even one arrow can take years, and a single plant genome harbours tens of millions of candidate TF-target pairs, this gap has driven the development of numerous computational methods for GRN inference. Here I review three generations of computational approaches to plant GRN inference and measure them against a five-level ladder of evidence, including statistical association, conditional dependence, physical binding, functional regulation and causal circuits. Classical statistics and machine learning have simplified complex gene expression data into clear, prioritised predictions. Techniques like single-cell and multi-omics methods help uncover cell type-specific networks based on chromatin accessibility and binding motifs. Now, deep learning can interpret cis-regulatory grammar directly from genome sequences, and foundation models trained on plant genomes and millions of cells hold exciting potential to share regulatory insights across different species. The most promising route forward is a lab-in-the-loop division of labour in which foundation models serve not as oracles but as hypothesis engines, collapsing fifty million candidate TF-target pairs into the few hundred edges most worth the bench's time, with each round of validation sharpening the next round of prediction.
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.