A multimodal framework for comprehensive driver variant prediction in cancer
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract Cancer's genomic complexity poses significant challenges in identifying the crucial driver variants that fuel oncogenesis. To overcome these obstacles, we present ModVAR, an innovative multimodal model that seamlessly integrates DNA sequences, protein tertiary structures, and cancer omics data to predict driver variants with exceptional precision. Leveraging pre-trained models DNAbert2 and ESMFold, combined with a novel self-supervised strategy for omics data, ModVAR consistently outperforms 14 leading prediction methods. It achieves an outstanding AUROC of 0.985 in clinical benchmarks and 0.952 in experimental assay-related benchmarks, underscoring its effectiveness in identifying both clinically and experimentally validated variants. ModVAR also excels in predicting cancer indels, with an AUROC of 0.901, and demonstrates remarkable generalization with an AUROC of 0.981 for non-cancer disease variants. These results underscore ModVAR's robustness and versatility, positioning it as a powerful tool in genomics and precision medicine. Additionally, its application to COSMIC has generated a publicly available resource of 3,971,946 annotated variants, driving an advancement in cancer research and personalized therapy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3
Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · Cited by 15,861 · cited 6× · see citing works
“Figure 8b displays the The protein 3D structure in the center is predicted by AlphaFold3, where blue color represents high-con fi dence predicted structural regions, and yellow/orange colors represents low-con fi dence predicted structural regions.”
InfluentialEvolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,523 · see citing works
KRAS Mutation: From Undruggable to Druggable in Cancer
Huang, L., Guo, Z., Wang, F., & Fu, L. (2021) · Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · doi:10.1038/s41392-021-00780-4 · Cited by 1,127 · see citing works
Disease variant prediction with deep generative models of evolutionary data
Frazer, J., Notin, P., Dias, M., Gomez, A., Min, J. K., Brock, K., Gal, Y., & Marks, D. S. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04043-8 · Cited by 791 · see citing works
Signatures of mutation and selection in the cancer genome
Bignell, G. R., Greenman, C. D., Davies, H., Butler, A. P., Edkins, S., Andrews, J. M., Buck, G., Chen, L., Beare, D., Latimer, C., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08768 · Cited by 707 · see citing works
Predicting functional effect of missense variants using graph attention neural networks
Zhang, H., Xu, M. S., Fan, X., Chung, W. K., & Shen, Y. (2022) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-022-00561-w · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Yang, H., Chen, Y., Zhou, T., Wang, Y., Zhou, Q., Xiao, T., Zhang, Q., Zhang, J., Li, D., & Wang, Z.
- Affiliations
- East China University of Science and Technology (CN)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Zhe
- Venue
- Communications Medicine
- Published
- 2025-11-26
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 499-499
- ISSN
- 2730-664X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4416720926
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 0.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Communications Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61902126)
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFF1204904)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Keywords
- multimodal learning, protein structure prediction, cancer omics, ESMFold, self-supervised learning, molecular docking, drug target prioritization, intrinsically disordered regions, variant annotation
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