PreprintCited by 243Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGene expression and cancer classification

Predicting mRNA abundance directly from genomic sequence using deep convolutional neural networks

Open access
Agarwal, Vikram, Shendure, Jay·2018·Cell Reports

Preprint — published as 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107663 · Paper page

Abstract

SUMMARY: Algorithms that accurately predict gene structure from primary sequence alone were transformative for annotating the human genome. Can we also predict the expression levels of genes based solely on genome sequence? Here we sought to apply deep convolutional neural networks towards this goal. Surprisingly, a model that includes only promoter sequences and features associated with mRNA stability explains 59% and 71% of variation in steady-state mRNA levels in human and mouse, respectively. This model, which we call Xpresso, more than doubles the accuracy of alternative sequence-based models, and isolates rules as predictive as models relying on ChIP-seq data. Xpresso recapitulates genome-wide patterns of transcriptional activity and predicts the influence of enhancers, heterochromatic domains, and microRNAs. Model interpretation reveals that promoter-proximal CpG dinucleotides strongly predict transcriptional activity. Looking forward, we propose the accurate prediction of cell type-specific gene expression based solely on primary sequence as a grand challenge for the field.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/416685

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 72 · Cited by 243

Authors
Agarwal, V., & Shendure, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Agarwal, Vikram
  • Shendure, Jay
Venue
Cell Reports
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2018-09-13
Volume
31
Issue
7
Pages
107663-107663
ISSN
2211-1247 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3026475692
Cited by
243
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
10.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cell Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007093)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG006768, DP1HG007811, R01HG009136, UM1HG009408)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA197139)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
promoter, mRNA stability, deep convolutional neural networks, CpG, enhancers, heterochromatin, microRNA, transcriptional activity, human and mouse genomes, cell type-specific gene expression
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Nerve Net, RNA, Messenger, Genomics, Mice

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