Current limitations in predicting mRNA translation with deep learning models
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: The design of nucleotide sequences with defined properties is a long-standing problem in bioengineering. An important application is protein expression, be it in the context of research or the production of mRNA vaccines. The rate of protein synthesis depends on the 5′ untranslated region (5′UTR) of the mRNAs, and recently, deep learning models were proposed to predict the translation output of mRNAs from the 5′UTR sequence. At the same time, large data sets of endogenous and reporter mRNA translation have become available. Results: In this study, we use complementary data obtained in two different cell types to assess the accuracy and generality of currently available models for predicting translational output. We find that while performing well on the data sets on which they were trained, deep learning models do not generalize well to other data sets, in particular of endogenous mRNAs, which differ in many properties from reporter constructs. Conclusions: These differences limit the ability of deep learning models to uncover mechanisms of translation control and to predict the impact of genetic variation. We suggest directions that combine high-throughput measurements and machine learning to unravel mechanisms of translation control and improve construct design.
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
Global quantification of mammalian gene expression control
Schwanhäusser, B., Busse, D., Li, N., Dittmar, G., Schuchhardt, J., Wolf, J., Chen, W., & Selbach, M. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10098 · Cited by 6,566 · cited 2× · see citing works
“These (and presumably other) factors lead to initiation rates that differ up to 100 fold between mRNAs [9], and a similarly wider range of protein relative to mRNA abundance [10].”
BackgroundMethodClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence
Landrum, M. J., Lee, J. M., Benson, M., Brown, G. R., Chao, C., Chitipiralla, S., Gu, B., Hart, J., Hoffman, D., Jang, W., et al. (2018) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkx1153 · Cited by 4,196 · see citing works
Rate-Limiting Steps in Yeast Protein Translation
Shah, P., Ding, Y., Niemczyk, M., Kudla, G., & Plotkin, J. B. (2013) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.049 · Cited by 463 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Initiation is the limiting step of translation [2, 6, 7], modulated by a variety of regulatory elements in the 5’UTRs [6, 31], from uORFs to internal ribosome entry sites [32–34].”
BackgroundHuman 5′ UTR design and variant effect prediction from a massively parallel translation assay
Sample, P. J., Wang, B., Reid, D. W., Presnyak, V., McFadyen, I. J., Morris, D. R., & Seelig, G. (2019) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0164-5 · Cited by 442 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Predicting the translation efficiency of messenger RNA in mammalian cells
Zheng, D., Persyn, L., Wang, J., Liu, Y., Ulloa-Montoya, F., Cenik, C., & Agarwal, V. (2026) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-025-02712-x · Cited by 52 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schlusser, N., González, A., Pandey, M., & Zavolan, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Basel (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Zavolan, Mihaela
- Venue
- Genome Biology
- Published
- 2024-08-20
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 227-227
- ISSN
- 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
- 1474-760X
- PMC
- PMC11337900
- OpenAlex
- W4401728436
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 2.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Genome biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (310030 204517)
- University of Basel
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Keywords
- 5' untranslated region, deep learning models, model generalization, endogenous mRNA, reporter constructs, protein expression, mRNA vaccine design, genetic variation
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Humans, RNA, Messenger, Protein Biosynthesis, 5' Untranslated Regions
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