Cited by 1,048Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

Basset: learning the regulatory code of the accessible genome with deep convolutional neural networks

Open access
Kelley, David R., Snoek, Jasper, Rinn, John L.·2016·Genome Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The complex language of eukaryotic gene expression remains incompletely understood. Despite the importance suggested by many noncoding variants statistically associated with human disease, nearly all such variants have unknown mechanisms. Here, we address this challenge using an approach based on a recent machine learning advance—deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs). We introduce the open source package Basset to apply CNNs to learn the functional activity of DNA sequences from genomics data. We trained Basset on a compendium of accessible genomic sites mapped in 164 cell types by DNase-seq, and demonstrate greater predictive accuracy than previous methods. Basset predictions for the change in accessibility between variant alleles were far greater for Genome-wide association study (GWAS) SNPs that are likely to be causal relative to nearby SNPs in linkage disequilibrium with them. With Basset, a researcher can perform a single sequencing assay in their cell type of interest and simultaneously learn that cell's chromatin accessibility code and annotate every mutation in the genome with its influence on present accessibility and latent potential for accessibility. Thus, Basset offers a powerful computational approach to annotate and interpret the noncoding genome.

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/gr.200535.115

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

  • Thus far, sequence-based models have focused on assays in which measured activity is proportional to local sequencing read counts.

    “Thus far, such models have focused on assays in which measured activity is proportional to local sequencing read counts.”

    From Predicting RNA-seq coverage from DNA sequence as a unifying model of gene regulation (2025) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Results section describes Basset as a sequence-based model of accessibility using DNase-seq data. But Methods (“DNase I hypersensitivity data”; page not provided) says its training labels were binary indicators of significant peaks, not activity values proportional to local sequencing read counts. The paper therefore supports the assay focus but not the claimed read-count relationship. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Existing sequence-to-function methods involve a trade-off between input sequence length and prediction resolution, limiting their modality scope and performance.

    “Existing methods involve a trade-off between input sequence length and prediction resolution, thereby limiting their modality scope and performance1–5.”

    From Advancing regulatory variant effect prediction with AlphaGenome (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Discussion says prior sequence-kernel methods lose positional information, while position-specific kernels can suffer in predictive performance; it also says Basset offers finer nucleotide-level resolution than annotation-overlap approaches. It does not describe a trade-off between input sequence length and prediction resolution or say that such a trade-off limits modality scope. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Massively parallel reporter assays coupled with machine learning have proven useful in addressing similar voids by producing quantitative biological insight that would be difficult to achieve through traditional approaches.

    “Massively parallel reporter assays (MPRAs) – methods that assess thousands to millions of sequence variants in a single experiment – coupled with machine learning have proven useful in addressing similar voids by producing quantitative biological insight that would be difficult to achieve through traditional approaches3–9.”

    From Human 5′ UTR design and variant effect prediction from a massively parallel translation assay (2019) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Results section (‘In silico saturation mutagenesis’; page unavailable) describes parallel reporter assays as a way to measure the activity of many mutations, and presents Basset’s machine-learning predictions as an in silico approach to the same problem. It does not report coupling an MPRA with machine learning; Basset was trained on DNase-seq accessibility data, so the cited paper supports the broader point about quantitative insight but not the claimed combination. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Machine-learning models trained to predict function from DNA sequences have been successful at characterizing regulatory syntax and interpreting genetic variant effects.

    “Machine-learning models trained to predict function from DNA sequences have been successful at characterizing regulatory syntax and interpreting genetic variant effects.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Alipanahi B, Delong A, Weirauch MT, Frey BJ. 2015 Predicting the sequence specificities of DNA- and RNA-binding proteins by deep learning. Nat Biotechnol 33: 831– 838. 26213851
  2. Arnold P, Schöler A, Pachkov M, Balwierz PJ, Jørgensen H, Stadler MB, van Nimwegen E, Schübeler D. 2013 Modeling of epigenome dynamics identifies transcription factors that mediate Polycomb targeting. Genome Res 23: 60– 73. 22964890 PMC3530684
  3. Beer MA, Tavazoie S. 2004 Predicting gene expression from sequence. Cell 117: 185– 198. 15084257
  4. Bengio Y, Courville A, Vincent P. 2013 Representation learning: a review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 35: 1798– 1828. 23787338
  5. Benveniste D, Sonntag H-J, Sanguinetti G, Sproul D. 2014 Transcription factor binding predicts histone modifications in human cell lines. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111: 13367– 13372. 25187560 PMC4169916
  6. Biddie SC, John S, Sabo PJ, Thurman RE, Johnson TA, Schiltz RL, Miranda TB, Sung M-H, Trump S, Lightman SL, 2011 Transcription factor AP1 potentiates chromatin accessibility and glucocorticoid receptor binding. Mol Cell 43: 145– 155. 21726817 PMC3138120
  7. Bird AP, Wolffe AP. 1999 Methylation-induced repression: belts, braces, and chromatin. Cell 99: 451– 454. 10589672
  8. Bussemaker HJ, Li H, Siggia ED. 2001 Regulatory element detection using correlation with expression. Nat Genet 27: 167– 174. 11175784
  9. Das R, Dimitrova N, Xuan Z, Rollins RA, Haghighi F, Edwards JR, Ju J, Bestor TH, Zhang MQ. 2006 Computational prediction of methylation status in human genomic sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103: 10713– 10716. 16818882 PMC1502297
  10. Degner JF, Pai AA, Pique-Regi R, Veyrieras J-B, Gaffney DJ, Pickrell JK, De Leon S, Michelini K, Lewellen N, Crawford GE, 2012 DNaseI sensitivity QTLs are a major determinant of human expression variation. Nature 482: 390– 394. 22307276 PMC3501342
  11. Dror I, Golan T, Levy C, Rohs R, Mandel-Gutfreund Y. 2015 A widespread role of the motif environment in transcription factor binding across diverse protein families. Genome Res 25: 1268– 1280. 26160164 PMC4561487
  12. The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012 An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489: 57– 74. 22955616 PMC3439153
  13. Farh KK-H, Marson A, Zhu J, Kleinewietfeld M, Housley WJ, Beik S, Shoresh N, Whitton H, Ryan RJH, Shishkin AA, 2015 Genetic and epigenetic fine mapping of causal autoimmune disease variants. Nature 518: 337– 343. 25363779 PMC4336207
  14. Fu Y, Liu Z, Lou S, Bedford J, Mu XJ, Yip KY, Khurana E, Gerstein M. 2014 FunSeq2: a framework for prioritizing noncoding regulatory variants in cancer. Genome Biol 15: 480. 25273974 PMC4203974
  15. Ghandi M, Lee D, Mohammad-Noori M, Beer MA. 2014 Enhanced regulatory sequence prediction using gapped k-mer features. PLoS Comput Biol 10: e1003711. 25033408 PMC4102394
  16. Gupta S, Stamatoyannopoulos JA, Bailey TL, Noble W. 2007 Quantifying similarity between motifs. Genome Biol 8: R24. 17324271 PMC1852410
  17. Harrow J, Frankish A, Gonzalez JM, Tapanari E, Diekhans M, Kokocinski F, Aken BL, Barrell D, Zadissa A, Searle S, 2012 GENCODE: the reference human genome annotation for The ENCODE Project. Genome Res 22: 1760– 1774. 22955987 PMC3431492
  18. Hu B, Lu Z, Li H, Chen Q. 2014 Convolutional neural network architectures for matching natural language sentences. In Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (NIPS 2014) (ed. Ghahramani Z,), pp. 2042– 2050, Montreal.
  19. Jin Y, Birlea SA, Fain PR, Ferrara TM, Ben S, Riccardi SL, Cole JB, Gowan K, Holland PJ, Bennett DC, 2012 Genome-wide association analyses identify 13 new susceptibility loci for generalized vitiligo. Nat Genet 44: 676– 680. 22561518 PMC3366044
  20. Kircher M, Witten DM, Jain P, O'Roak BJ, Cooper GM, Shendure J. 2014 A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants. Nat Genet 46: 310– 315. 24487276 PMC3992975
  21. LeCun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P. 1998 Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc IEEE 86: 2278– 2324.
  22. Lee D, Gorkin DU, Baker M, Strober BJ, Asoni AL, McCallion AS, Beer MA. 2015 A method to predict the impact of regulatory variants from DNA sequence. Nat Genet 47: 955– 961. 26075791 PMC4520745
  23. Levo M, Segal E. 2014 In pursuit of design principles of regulatory sequences. Nat Rev Genet 15: 453– 468. 24913666
  24. Lupiáñez DG, Kraft K, Heinrich V, Krawitz P, Brancati F, Klopocki E, Horn D, Kayserili H, Opitz JM, Laxova R, 2015 Disruptions of topological chromatin domains cause pathogenic rewiring of gene-enhancer interactions. Cell 161: 1012– 1025. 25959774 PMC4791538
  25. Melnikov A, Murugan A, Zhang X, Tesileanu T, Wang L, Rogov P, Feizi S, Gnirke A, Callan CG, Kinney JB, 2012 Systematic dissection and optimization of inducible enhancers in human cells using a massively parallel reporter assay. Nat Biotechnol 30: 271– 277. 22371084 PMC3297981
  26. Nair V, Hinton GE. 2010 Rectified linear units improve restricted Boltzmann machines. In International conference on machine learning, Haifa, Israel.
  27. Okada Y, Wu D, Trynka G, Raj T, Terao C, Ikari K, Kochi Y, Ohmura K, Suzuki A, Yoshida S, 2013 Genetics of rheumatoid arthritis contributes to biology and drug discovery. Nature 506: 376– 381. 24390342 PMC3944098
  28. Patwardhan RP, Lee C, Litvin O, Young DL, Pe'er D, Shendure J. 2009 High-resolution analysis of DNA regulatory elements by synthetic saturation mutagenesis. Nat Biotechnol 27: 1173– 1175. 19915551 PMC2849652
  29. Patwardhan RP, Hiatt JB, Witten DM, Kim MJ, Smith RP, May D, Lee C, Andrie JM, Lee S-I, Cooper GM, 2012 Massively parallel functional dissection of mammalian enhancers in vivo. Nat Biotechnol 30: 265– 270. 22371081 PMC3402344
  30. Pignon J-C, Grisanzio C, Geng Y, Song J, Shivdasani RA, Signoretti S. 2013 p63-expressing cells are the stem cells of developing prostate, bladder, and colorectal epithelia. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110: 8105– 8110. 23620512 PMC3657776
  31. Pinello L, Xu J, Orkin SH, Yuan G-C. 2014 Analysis of chromatin-state plasticity identifies cell-type–specific regulators of H3K27me3 patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111: E344– E353. 24395799 PMC3903219
  32. Pollard KS, Hubisz MJ, Rosenbloom KR, Siepel A. 2010 Detection of nonneutral substitution rates on mammalian phylogenies. Genome Res 20: 110– 121. 19858363 PMC2798823
  33. Ray S, Pollard JW. 2012 KLF15 negatively regulates estrogen-induced epithelial cell proliferation by inhibition of DNA replication licensing. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109: E1334– E1343. 22538816 PMC3361390
  34. Reid JE, Evans KJ, Dyer N, Wernisch L, Ott S. 2010 Variable structure motifs for transcription factor binding sites. BMC Genomics 11: 30. 20074339 PMC2824720
  35. Ritchie GRS, Dunham I, Zeggini E, Flicek P. 2014 Functional annotation of noncoding sequence variants. Nat Methods 11: 294– 296. 24487584 PMC5015703
  36. Segal E, Shapira M, Regev A, Pe'er D, Botstein D, Koller D, Friedman N. 2003 Module networks: identifying regulatory modules and their condition-specific regulators from gene expression data. Nat Genet 34: 166– 176. 12740579
  37. Setty M, Leslie CS. 2015 SeqGL identifies context-dependent binding signals in genome-wide regulatory element maps. PLoS Comput Biol 11: e1004271. 26016777 PMC4446265
  38. Sherwood RI, Hashimoto T, O'Donnell CW, Lewis S, Barkal AA, van Hoff JP, Karun V, Jaakkola T, Gifford DK. 2014 Discovery of directional and nondirectional pioneer transcription factors by modeling DNase profile magnitude and shape. Nat Biotechnol 32: 171– 178. 24441470 PMC3951735
  39. Stormo GD. 2000 DNA binding sites: representation and discovery. Bioinformatics 16: 16– 23. 10812473
  40. Szegedy C, Liu W, Jia Y, Sermanet P, Reed S, Anguelov D, Erhan D, Vanhoucke V, Rabinovich A. 2015 Going deeper with convolutions. arXiv:1409.4842 [cS.CV]. · arXiv
  41. Thurman RE, Rynes E, Humbert R, Vierstra J, Maurano MT, Haugen E, Sheffield NC, Stergachis AB, Wang H, Vernot B, 2012 The accessible chromatin landscape of the human genome. Nature 489: 75– 82. 22955617 PMC3721348
  42. Wang J, Zhuang J, Iyer S, Lin X, Whitfield TW, Greven MC, Pierce BG, Dong X, Kundaje A, Cheng Y, 2012 Sequence features and chromatin structure around the genomic regions bound by 119 human transcription factors. Genome Res 22: 1798– 1812. 22955990 PMC3431495
  43. Weirauch MT, Yang A, Albu M, Cote AG, Montenegro-Montero A, Drewe P, Najafabadi HS, Lambert SA, Mann I, Cook K, 2014 Determination and inference of eukaryotic transcription factor sequence specificity. Cell 158: 1431– 1443. 25215497 PMC4163041
  44. Welter D, MacArthur J, Morales J, Burdett T, Hall P, Junkins H, Klemm A, Flicek P, Manolio T, Hindorff L, 2014 The NHGRI GWAS Catalog, a curated resource of SNP-trait associations. Nucleic Acids Res 42: D1001– D1006. 24316577 PMC3965119
  45. Whitaker JW, Chen Z, Wang W. 2015 Predicting the human epigenome from DNA motifs. Nat Methods 12: 265– 272. 25240437 PMC4344378
  46. Wilanowski T, Caddy J, Ting SB, Hislop NR, Cerruti L, Auden A, Zhao L-L, Asquith S, Ellis S, Sinclair R, 2008 Perturbed desmosomal cadherin expression in grainy head-like 1-null mice. EMBO J 27: 886– 897. 18288204 PMC2274933
  47. Zhang X, Zhao J, LeCun Y. 2015 Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (NIPS 2015) (ed. Cortes C,), Montreal.
  48. Zhou J, Troyanskaya OG. 2015 Predicting effects of noncoding variants with deep learning–based sequence model. Nat Methods 12: 931– 934. 26301843 PMC4768299

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelley, D. R., Snoek, J., & Rinn, J. L.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2016-05-03
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
990-999
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2345512687
Cited by
1,048
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 95 · 2025: 111 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 118 · 2021: 122 · 2020: 123 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 103 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 13 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH) K25 (ES022984-02)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH102416-03)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
Basset, deep convolutional neural networks, chromatin accessibility, DNase-seq, non-coding variants, GWAS SNPs, causal variants, linkage disequilibrium, variant effect prediction
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, Binding Sites, Humans, Models, Genetic, Linkage Disequilibrium, Consensus Sequence, Neural Networks, Computer, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Molecular Sequence Annotation, Support Vector Machine

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