Benchmarking of deep neural networks for predicting personal gene expression from DNA sequence highlights shortcomings
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Deep learning methods have recently become the state of the art in a variety of regulatory genomic tasks 1-6, including the prediction of gene expression from genomic DNA. As such, these methods promise to serve as important tools in interpreting the full spectrum of genetic variation observed in personal genomes. Previous evaluation strategies have assessed their predictions of gene expression across genomic regions; however, systematic benchmarking is lacking to assess their predictions across individuals, which would directly evaluate their utility as personal DNA interpreters. We used paired whole genome sequencing and gene expression from 839 individuals in the ROSMAP study 7 to evaluate the ability of current methods to predict gene expression variation across individuals at varied loci. Our approach identifies a limitation of current methods to correctly predict the direction of variant effects. We show that this limitation stems from insufficiently learned sequence motif grammar and suggest new model training strategies to improve performance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AlphaGenome has not yet been benchmarked on personal genome prediction, a known weakness of models in this space.
“We have not yet benchmarked the model on personal genome prediction, which is a known weakness of models in this space40,41.”
From Advancing regulatory variant effect prediction with AlphaGenome (2026) · cites this paper as [40]
Cites
Base-resolution models of transcription-factor binding reveal soft motif syntax
Avsec, Ž., Weilert, M., Shrikumar, A., Krueger, S., Alexandari, A., Dalal, K., Fropf, R., McAnany, C., Gagneur, J., Kundaje, A., et al. (2021) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00782-6 · Cited by 610 · cited 2× · see citing works
“State-of-the-art models can reproduce experimental measurements with a high degree of accuracy and enable mechanistic insights through their learned DNA features 1,2,15 .”
Sequence-based modeling of three-dimensional genome architecture from kilobase to chromosome scale
Zhou, J. (2022) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-022-01065-4 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AlphaGenome: advancing regulatory variant effect prediction with a unified DNA sequence model
Avsec, Ž., Latysheva, N., Cheng, J., Novati, G., Taylor, K. R., Ward, T., Bycroft, C., Nicolaisen, L., Arvaniti, E., Pan, J., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1101/2025.06.25.661532 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Advancing regulatory variant effect prediction with AlphaGenome
Avsec, Ž., Latysheva, N., Cheng, J., Novati, G., Taylor, K. R., Ward, T., Bycroft, C., Nicolaisen, L., Arvaniti, E., Pan, J., et al. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-10014-0 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
“We have not yet benchmarked the model on personal genome prediction, which is a known weakness of models in this space 40,41 .”
Predicting RNA-seq coverage from DNA sequence as a unifying model of gene regulation
Linder, J., Srivastava, D., Yuan, H., Agarwal, V., & Kelley, D. R. (2025) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-024-02053-6 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Hold out the genome: a roadmap to solving the cis-regulatory code
de Boer, C. G., & Taipale, J. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06661-w · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Murphy, A. E., Askarova, A., Lenhard, B., Skene, N. G., & Marzi, S. J. (2025) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkae1212 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
TFXcan reveals transcription factor programs driving GWAS loci
Adeluwa, T., Salazar-Magaña, S., Sumner, S., Gona, S., Nyasimi, F., Carbonetto, P., Baca, S. C., Freedman, M., Gusev, A., Liu, B., et al. (2026) · Cell Genomics · doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2026.101398
- Authors
- Sasse, A., Ng, B., Spiro, A. E., Tasaki, S., Bennett, D. A., Gaiteri, C., De Jager, P. L., Chikina, M., & Mostafavi, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Rush University Medical Center (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Chikina, Maria
- Mostafavi, Sara
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Genetics
- Published
- 2023-11-30
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2060-2064
- ISSN
- 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
- 1546-1718
- PMC
- PMC10055057
- OpenAlex
- W4389174422
- Cited by
- 139
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 10
- FWCI
- 23.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- Funders
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
- National Institutes of Health (R01AG03-6836)
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (U01AG46152, P30AG10161, U01AG61356, R01 AG17917, P30 AG72975, R01AG15819)
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG017917, U01AG058589, U01AG046152, R01AG057911, R01AG015819, P30AG010161, U01AG061356, U01AG072572, P30AG072975)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
- Keywords
- gene expression prediction, deep neural network, benchmarking, personal genomics, sequence motifs, regulatory genomics, whole genome sequencing, personalized medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review