Predicting cell-state-specific gene regulation from DNA across species
Open accessAbstract
DNA encodes the cell's phenotype, but the same DNA sequence is interpreted differently in every cell type, developmental stage, and activity state. Existing deep-learning models solve only half of this puzzle: sequence-to-function models read DNA but treat cell state as a fixed label, while single-cell foundation models represent cell state but not sequence. We developed Bolero, a sequence-to-function model whose parameters condition on atlas-scale cell-state embeddings and additional biological variables to predict cell-state-specific chromatin accessibility and transcript abundance from DNA. Trained on 10.7 million cells from 33 datasets across six mammals, Bolero matched or exceeded specialised models and resolved regulatory differences between closely related cell states, including cortical regional and developmental gradients. Extrapolating cell-state embeddings extended Bolero's predictions to cell states that are absent from training. Cell-state conditioning facilitated tracing of the effects of non-coding variants to the cell types in which they act. Using an AP-1 activity score as a further continuous conditioning axis, Bolero predicted activity-regulated chromatin changes without requiring actual stimulation data. Across human cell types, we reconstructed the cooperative grammar of motif identity and spacing underlying predicted AP-1 responses. Bolero further predicted cell-type-specific chromatin accessibility and AP-1 responses in species excluded from training, extending comparative genomics from sequence conservation to predicted functional conservation. Across 84 mammals, we found that predicted AP-1 responses were less conserved than chromatin accessibility at cis-regulatory elements, driven by the human-specific sequence variants on AP-1 and cooperating motifs. By combining reference genomes with reference cell atlases, Bolero allowed genome sequences, either native or mutated, to be queried across cell states, perturbations, and different species for their chromatin and expression signatures.
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.
- Authors
- Liu, H., Mao, S., Gallent, T., Chen, Y., Yan, Z., Vogel, I., Traunmuller, L., Zhang, R., Buenrostro, J. D., Zhou, J., & Greenberg, M. E.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Arc Research Institute (US)
- Palo Alto Institute (US)
- Department of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA;
- Broad Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zhou, Jingtian
- Venue
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2026-10-20
- OpenAlex
- W7223056167
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Harvard Society of Fellows
- Harvard Data Science Initiative
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
- Keywords
- chromatin accessibility prediction, non-coding variants, cis-regulatory elements, comparative genomics, cell type-specific gene expression, deep learning
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