Benchmarking foundation models for splice site and exon annotation

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-06 · read from full text

The study benchmarks multiple foundation and deep learning models for gene and splice-site annotation, evaluating transformer- and CNN-based approaches (SegmentNT, Enformer, Borzoi, SpliceAI, AlphaGenome) and a new fine-tuned model (STEP2h) across exon and splice-site classes distinguished by coding vs non-coding, internal vs terminal, constitutive vs alternatively spliced, and transposable element–derived exons. The key finding is that performance is highest for exon classes well represented in each model’s training data and drops substantially for poorly represented classes, with reported decreases up to 2–4 fold for non-coding internal exons, terminal exons, and alternatively spliced exons, and impairment for LINE-1 and Alu-derived exons. A major caveat highlighted is that reduced or non-representative training datasets limit capture of biological complexity, motivating class-specific fine-tuning or task-specific models. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Recent foundation and deep learning models have brought a generational leap in improving the quality of genome annotation, particularly in identifying genes and their structural elements, including exons and splice sites. However, they are trained on reduced datasets that may not capture biological complexity, such as differences between coding versus non-coding, terminal versus internal, constitutive versus alternatively spliced, and transposable element (TE)-derived exons. We evaluate several foundation models for gene and splice site annotation, including the transformer-based SegmentNT, Enformer and Borzoi, coupled with a segmentation head for per-base resolution, and the CNN-based SpliceAI and AlphaGenome, along with a newly developed fine-tuned model, STEP2h, on different classes of gene elements as described above. We found that the performance of all methods is highest for the class of exons found in their training data class and decreases drastically for classes of exons poorly represented. In particular, performance is highest for protein-coding genes, coding exons, and constitutive exons, and decreases drastically by up to 2-4 fold for non-coding internal exons, terminal exons, and exons that undergo alternative splicing. Similarly, performance is impaired on LINE-1 and Alu -derived exons. In contrast, a locally developed CNN model fine-tuned on a specialized TE-exon dataset showed improved performance in this category. Our study highlights the outstanding challenges in gene and exon annotation when leveraging powerful foundation models, and the need for further fine-tuning on judiciously selected classes of data or task-specific models to capture a broader, more diverse spectrum of gene features.
Full text 1,823 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Recent foundation and deep learning models have brought a generational leap in improving the quality of genome annotation, particularly in identifying genes and their structural elements, including exons and splice sites. However, they are trained on reduced datasets that may not capture biological complexity, such as differences between coding versus non-coding, terminal versus internal, constitutive versus alternatively spliced, and transposable element (TE)-derived exons. We evaluate several foundation models for gene and splice site annotation, including the transformer-based SegmentNT, Enformer and Borzoi, coupled with a segmentation head for per-base resolution, and the CNN-based SpliceAI and AlphaGenome, along with a newly developed fine-tuned model, STEP2h, on different classes of gene elements as described above. We found that the performance of all methods is highest for the class of exons found in their training data class and decreases drastically for classes of exons poorly represented. In particular, performance is highest for protein-coding genes, coding exons, and constitutive exons, and decreases drastically by up to 2-4 fold for non-coding internal exons, terminal exons, and exons that undergo alternative splicing. Similarly, performance is impaired on LINE-1 and Alu-derived exons. In contrast, a locally developed CNN model fine-tuned on a specialized TE-exon dataset showed improved performance in this category. Our study highlights the outstanding challenges in gene and exon annotation when leveraging powerful foundation models, and the need for further fine-tuning on judiciously selected classes of data or task-specific models to capture a broader, more diverse spectrum of gene features. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-28T02:00:01.590549+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0