STRAND: Sequence-Conditioned Transport for Single-Cell Perturbations
Authors: Boyang Fu, Sameer Gabbita, George Dasoulas, Xiang Lin, Shanghua Gao, Xiaorui Su, Soumya Ghosh, Marinka Zitnik
Organizations: Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA · Merck & Co., Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA · Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA · Kempner Institute for the Study of Natural and Artificial Intelligence, Harvard University, Allston, MA, USA · Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA · Harvard Data Science Initiative, Cambridge, MA, USA
Prediction of the transcriptional response of a cell to a genetic perturbation is a central problem in the computational modeling of gene regulation. Perturbations of the same gene can produce different transcriptional responses depending on the targeted locus, such as an alternative transcription start site or a distal regulatory element, and gene-level perturbation models represent these distinct interventions with a single gene identifier. We introduce STRAND, a generative model that encodes the regulatory DNA sequence at the perturbation locus and uses this encoding to parameterize a conditional transport process from control to perturbed single-cell states. Sequence conditioning enables zero-shot prediction for perturbation targets absent from training and supports locus-resolved inputs at 128 bp model resolution within a 524 kb sequence window. On CRISPRi screens in K562, Jurkat, and RPE1 cells, STRAND achieves the best average rank on few-shot and unseen-gene benchmarks, with gains of up to 33% in perturbation discrimination, and improves transfer to held-out cell lines by up to 0.12 in ΔPearson. Ablation studies attribute these gains to sequence conditioning and to conditional transport. At the locus level, STRAND distinguishes alternative transcription start sites and validated regulatory elements that gene-identifier models represent as a single perturbation. STRAND is available at https://github.com/mims-harvard/STRAND.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of STRAND. STRAND conditions perturbation effects on regulatory DNA sequence to perform in-silico profiling of locus-specific perturbations at 128 bp model resolution within a 524 kb sequence context. Perturbations targeting the same gene at different genomic locations ( sp1 , sp2 ) can induce distinct transcriptional responses.
Model class
Perturbation input
Response prediction
Input scope
Gene-level predictors
Gene / label
Yes
Annotated genes ( ∼ 1.5%)
DNA FMs
DNA sequence
No †
Regulatory tracks / local readouts
STRAND
Locus DNA sequence
Yes
128 bp bins; ∼ 95% genome
Table 1: Perturbation-input scope. Gene-level perturbation predictors condition on gene or perturbation identifiers, whereas STRAND conditions on regulatory DNA sequence at a specified locus. Input scope denotes architectural input support, not empirical validation.
Figure 2: STRAND architecture design. The framework integrates genomic and transcriptomic modalities to predict perturbed cell expression. The pipeline consists of three main learnable components: (1) A DNA Perturbation Module g that processes representations from a frozen Borzoi model and the perturbation mask m to produce the perturbation condition up ; (2) A Cellular Transport Module e utilizing a control-anchored I2SB bridge conditioned on up to transport the control cell embedding zc to the perturbed cell embedding z^p ; and (3) A Gene Level Decoding Module that maps z^p to a gene-level effect δ^p , which is added to the reconstructed control reference x^ref to give the predicted perturbed expression x^p .
Distributional Fidelity
DE Signal
Global Fit
Summary
Task
Method
Discr. Cos ↑
E-Dist ↓
Dir. Match ↑
Prec.@N ↑
Ov.@N ↑
Δ Pearson ↑
MSE ↓
Avg. Rank ↓
Few-shot
BioLord
5.04 ± 0.09
9.41 ± 0.11
6.10 ± 0.04
0.72 ± 0.02
0.40 ± 0.02
0.16 ± 0.00
1.38 ± 0.04
4.71
GEARS
5.40 ± 0.10
1.64 ± 0.06
7.05 ± 0.05
0.71 ± 0.02
0.77 ± 0.03
0.31 ± 0.01
1.19 ± 0.03
3.14
Linear
5.04 ± 0.09
8.90 ± 0.08
3.91 ± 0.03
1.00 ± 0.04
1.03 ± 0.03
0.19 ± 0.01
1.11 ± 0.03
3.29
PerturbMean
5.02 ± 0.09
8.91 ± 0.08
8.43 ± 0.03
0.22 ± 0.01
0.58 ± 0.02
0.52 ± 0.01
1.03 ± 0.03
3.29
STATE
6.40 ± 0.09
12.46 ± 0.11
5.75 ± 0.06
0.74 ± 0.02
0.38 ± 0.02
0.13 ± 0.01
5.06 ± 0.09
4.71
Table 2: Gene perturbation performance comparison. Single cell-line evaluation: models are trained and evaluated independently on each cell line (K562, Jurkat, RPE1) and metrics averaged across cell lines under few-shot ( k=5 ) and zero-shot settings. Per–cell-line results in Tables S6 , S7 , S8 . Zero-shot with GEARS-supported perturbation subset in Table S8 . Dir. Match, Prec.@N, Ov.@N, and Discr. Cos are scaled by ×10 ; MSE by ×100 . E-Dist and Δ Pearson are unscaled.
Figure 3: Comparison to gene-level baselines . STRAND is compared against PMean (PerturbMean), STATE, Linear, and Biolord on the Combined data in few-shot setting. GEARS is excluded as it doesn’t support cross-cell-line joint training.
Figure 4: Ablation of STRAND components. Left: Ablation of the STRAND DNA Perturbation Module. Models are trained on the Combined dataset. Plots show statistics for the top- K genes with the largest absolute expression changes. Shaded regions denote 95% CIs. Right: Ablation of the STRAND Cellular Transport Module. The generative model demonstrates better fidelity in modeling the perturbation distribution. More comprehensive comparison in Table S10 .
Figure 5: Virtual perturbation screening at the GATA1/HDAC6 regulatory region. STRAND performs an in silico scan with a sliding ±200 bp mask (100 bp steps; 50 bp in the right panel), revealing cell-type-specific sensitivity at the K562 promoter (left) and localizing a sharp peak near the well-established e-HDAC6 enhancer [ 16 ] ∼ 13.7 kb downstream in non-coding region (right). Gene-level methods ( gray ) yield a constant signal across the gene body and cannot extrapolate to non-coding regions.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
Description
PCA components
min(50,n+m−1)
Latent space dimensionality
Cost function
Squared Euclidean
Distance metric in PCA space
Hierarchy depth
6
Number of refinement levels
Max rank ( rmax )
210=1024
Maximum rank per level
Max subproblem ( Qmax )
max(215,n)
Largest subproblem size
Base rank ( r0 )
1
Binary partitioning
Appendix
Table S1: OT matching hyperparameters
Solver
Feature space
Cos. to default
Rel. transport cost
HiRef (default)
PCA-50
1.000
1.00
HiRef
Raw 128-d
0.998
1.04
Hungarian
PCA-50
0.997
1.02
Hungarian
Raw 128-d
0.995
1.05
Random pairing
—
0.31
4.78
Appendix
Table S2: OT pairing robustness. Cosine similarity of pseudo-bulk perturbation displacement vs. default (HiRef + PCA-50), and relative transport cost.
Figure S1: Per-perturbation-group PCA variance explained for SCimilarity embeddings. For each cell line, PCA is fit separately on the concatenated control and perturbed embeddings within each perturbation group, matching the grouping used for OT matching. Lines show the mean cumulative variance explained across groups. The dashed line marks k=50 , the PCA dimension used for OT matching.
Hyperparameter
Value
DNA projection hidden dim ( dh )
128
Projection output dim ( dRNA )
varies by RNA encoder
Initial temperature ( τ0 )
0.07
Temperature clamp range
[5.0,33.0]
Soft target temperature ( τsoft )
0.1
EMA momentum ( β )
0.9
Appendix
Table S3: Hyperparameters for sequence-expression alignment.
Dataset
Genes
Samples
(Train / Test)
K562
4,136
318,443 / 61,233
Jurkat
6,842
155,393 / 36,073
RPE1
4,760
163,453 / 46,053
Combined
2,000
637,289 / 143,359
Appendix
Table S4: Few-shot dataset statistics . Train and test counts are reported as paired values.
Dataset
Perturb.
Genes
Samples
(Train / Test)
(Train / Test)
K562
1,564 / 267
4,136
317,103 / 62,573
Jurkat
1,227 / 313
6,842
153,823 / 37,643
RPE1
1,596 / 406
4,760
161,418 / 48,088
Combined
2,499 / 886
2,000
632,339 / 148,309
Appendix
Table S5: Zero-shot dataset statistics . Train and test counts are reported as paired values.
Distributional Fidelity
DE Signal
Global Fit
Summary
Dataset
Method
Discr. Cos ↑
E-Dist ↓
Dir. Match ↑
Prec.@N ↑
Ov.@N ↑
Δ Pearson ↑
MSE ↓
Avg. Rank ↓
K562
BioLord
5.02 ± 0.18
7.72 ± 0.11
5.13 ± 0.04
0.66 ± 0.03
0.31 ± 0.02
0.02 ± 0.00
0.95 ± 0.05
4.86
GEARS
5.12 ± 0.17
0.96 ± 0.06
6.63 ± 0.06
0.63 ± 0.03
0.51 ± 0.03
0.22 ± 0.01
0.92 ± 0.04
3.14
Linear
5.04 ± 0.18
7.56 ± 0.10
3.58 ± 0.05
0.18 ± 0.01
0.51 ± 0.02
0.11 ± 0.00
0.81 ± 0.04
4.14
PerturbMean
5.02 ± 0.18
7.56 ± 0.10
8.50 ± 0.05
0.15 ± 0.01
0.64 ± 0.03
0.55 ± 0.01
0.78 ± 0.04
2.86
STATE
5.38 ± 0.17
12.73 ± 0.12
5.23 ± 0.12
0.66 ± 0.03
0.32 ± 0.02
0.05 ± 0.01
5.36 ± 0.27
4.43
Appendix
Table S6: Few shot gene perturbation performance comparison Values are reported as mean ± standard error. For readability, Ov.@N, Prec.@N, Dir.Match, and Disc.Cos are scaled by ×10 , and MSE is scaled by ×100 . Avg. Rank measures the overall rank averaged across all metrics, computed using unrounded raw metric values. Best Avg. Rank is shown in bold .
Distributional Fidelity
DE Signal
Global Fit
Summary
Dataset
Method
Discr. Cos ↑
E-Dist ↓
Dir. Match ↑
Prec.@N ↑
Ov.@N ↑
Δ Pearson ↑
MSE ↓
Avg. Rank ↓
K562
BioLord
5.07 ± 0.18
7.70 ± 0.11
5.31 ± 0.04
0.68 ± 0.03
0.31 ± 0.02
0.04 ± 0.00
0.92 ± 0.05
3.29
Linear
5.06 ± 0.18
7.56 ± 0.10
3.46 ± 0.05
0.18 ± 0.01
0.49 ± 0.02
0.11 ± 0.00
0.78 ± 0.04
3.00
PerturbMean
5.02 ± 0.18
7.56 ± 0.10
8.50 ± 0.05
0.15 ± 0.01
0.64 ± 0.03
0.55 ± 0.01
0.78 ± 0.04
2.14
STATE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
STRAND
5.14 ± 0.18
1.74 ± 0.08
6.58 ± 0.10
0.69 ± 0.03
0.85 ± 0.04
0.21 ± 0.01
0.85 ± 0.04
1.57
Appendix
Table S7: Zero-shot gene perturbation performance comparison Values are reported as mean ± standard error. For readability, Ov.@N, Prec.@N, Dir.Match, and Disc.Cos are scaled by ×10 , and MSE is scaled by ×100 . (N/A) represents that the method does not apply to the task and is therefore not evaluated. Avg. Rank measures the overall rank averaged across all metrics, computed using unrounded raw metric values. Best Avg. Rank is shown in bold .
Dataset
Method
Discr. Cos ↑
E-Dist ↓
Dir. Match ↑
Prec.@N ↑
Ov.@N ↑
Δ Pearson ↑
MSE ↓
Avg. Rank ↓
K562
BioLord
5.06 ± 0.22
7.72 ± 0.13
5.28 ± 0.04
0.70 ± 0.04
0.32 ± 0.03
0.04 ± 0.00
0.93 ± 0.06
4.14
GEARS
4.82 ± 0.21
1.01 ± 0.08
6.57 ± 0.06
0.69 ± 0.04
0.56 ± 0.03
0.21 ± 0.01
0.90 ± 0.05
2.86
Linear
5.08 ± 0.21
7.58 ± 0.12
3.48 ± 0.05
0.20 ± 0.02
0.50 ± 0.02
0.11 ± 0.00
0.80 ± 0.05
3.57
PerturbMean
4.80 ± 0.21
7.58 ± 0.12
8.43 ± 0.05
0.15 ± 0.01
0.66 ± 0.03
0.54 ± 0.01
0.79 ± 0.05
2.57
STATE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
STRAND
5.15 ± 0.22
1.70 ± 0.09
6.53 ± 0.12
0.71 ± 0.04
0.87 ± 0.05
0.21 ± 0.02
0.86 ± 0.05
1.86
Appendix
Table S8: Zero-shot performance comparison with GEARS . We selected the subset of genes for which GEARS can make predictions. 189 genes for K562, 236 genes for Jurkat, and 269 genes for RPE1.
Dataset
Method
Discr. Cos ↑
E-Dist ↓
Dir. Match ↑
Prec.@N
Ov.@N ↑
Δ Pearson ↑
MSE ↓
Avg. Rank ↓
K562
STRAND (w/o CLIP)
6.81 ± 0.17
1.42 ± 0.05
7.34 ± 0.11
0.67 ± 0.03
1.01 ± 0.05
0.34 ± 0.01
0.76 ± 0.04
1.57
STRAND
7.10 ± 0.17
1.53 ± 0.05
7.47 ± 0.10
0.67 ± 0.03
1.05 ± 0.06
0.33 ± 0.01
0.80 ± 0.04
1.43
Jurkat
STRAND (w/o CLIP)
6.73 ± 0.16
1.64 ± 0.07
7.50 ± 0.09
0.44 ± 0.03
0.61 ± 0.05
0.34 ± 0.01
0.76 ± 0.04
1.57
STRAND
7.19 ± 0.16
1.82 ± 0.07
7.58 ± 0.09
0.44 ± 0.03
0.64 ± 0.04
0.34 ± 0.01
0.78 ± 0.04
1.43
RPE1
STRAND (w/o CLIP)
6.23 ± 0.15
2.84 ± 0.12
7.78 ± 0.09
0.99 ± 0.04
1.75 ± 0.07
0.46 ± 0.02
1.53 ± 0.06
2.00
STRAND
7.04 ± 0.14
2.62 ± 0.10
7.93 ± 0.08
1.01 ± 0.04
1.76 ± 0.07
0.47 ± 0.01
1.39 ± 0.05
1.00
Appendix
Table S9: Ablation on CLIP loss
Dataset
Method
Discr. Cos ↑
E-Dist ↓
Dir. Match ↑
Prec.@N ↑
Ov.@N ↑
Δ Pearson ↑
MSE ↓
Avg. Rank ↓
K562
STRAND
7.10 ± 0.17
1.53 ± 0.05
7.47 ± 0.10
0.67 ± 0.03
1.05 ± 0.06
0.33 ± 0.01
0.80 ± 0.04
1.29
STRAND (w/o Perturbation Module)
5.12 ± 0.18
1.80 ± 0.08
6.82 ± 0.08
0.67 ± 0.03
0.75 ± 0.03
0.25 ± 0.01
0.85 ± 0.04
2.57
STRAND (w/o Latent Transport Module)
5.00 ± 0.18
2.45 ± 0.08
7.13 ± 0.08
0.70 ± 0.04
0.96 ± 0.05
0.33 ± 0.01
0.86 ± 0.04
2.14
Jurkat
STRAND
7.19 ± 0.16
1.82 ± 0.07
7.58 ± 0.09
0.44 ± 0.03
0.64 ± 0.04
0.34 ± 0.01
0.78 ± 0.04
1.00
STRAND (w/o Perturbation Module)
5.03 ± 0.17
2.02 ± 0.12
7.04 ± 0.07
0.42 ± 0.03
0.42 ± 0.03
0.29 ± 0.01
0.81 ± 0.05
2.43
STRAND (w/o Latent Transport Module)
4.98 ± 0.16
2.61 ± 0.11
7.22 ± 0.07
0.43 ± 0.03
0.31 ± 0.02
0.32 ± 0.01
0.84 ± 0.04
2.57
Appendix
Table S10: Ablation of the perturbation module .
Setting
Model
DiscCos ↑
DirMatch ↑
P@N ↑
O@N ↑
Δ Pear ↑
MSE ↓
Rank ↓
Few-shot ( k=5 )
Linear 7 kb
5.060
6.774
1.728
1.983
0.293
1.754
1.91
Linear 524 kb
5.046
6.767
1.720
1.970
0.291
1.764
2.86
STRAND
7.159
8.014
2.427
2.626
0.460
1.754
1.22
Zero-shot
Linear 7 kb
5.025
7.057
1.801
1.950
0.328
1.720
2.00
Linear 524 kb
5.021
7.058
1.796
1.942
0.327
1.726
2.67
STRAND
5.389
7.981
2.158
2.397
0.457
1.750
1.33
Appendix
Table S11: Linear context-width control. Mean over K562, Jurkat, and RPE1 (2,000 HVGs). DiscCos, DirMatch, P@N, and O@N are scaled by × 10; MSE by × 100.
Figure S2: Unseen cell-line perturbation prediction. STRAND (green) consistently outperforms STACK (blue), STATE (brown) and the Identity baseline (gray).
Transcript
Transcript Annotation
Impact
ID
TSS (chr1)
Type
E-dist. ↑
201
212,858,275
Canonical (FLVCR1a)
0.564
202
212,858,916
Alternative (FLVCR1b)
0.683
203
212,864,412
Unknown
0.450
204
212,883,409
Unknown
0.580
205
212,863,631
Unknown
0.470
Appendix
Table S12: Sequence-level perturbation impact across FLVCR1 TSSs in K562. Among five candidate TSSs, the alternative FLVCR1b promoter (Transcript 202) exhibits the largest perturbation impact, measured by Energy Distance.
Figure S3: Jurkat - CD3D.
Figure S4: RPE1 - KRT18.
Dataset
Method
Discr. Cos ↑
E-Dist ↓
Dir. Match ↑
Prec.@N ↑
Ov.@N ↑
Δ Pearson ↑
MSE ↓
Avg. Rank ↓
K562
STRAND (FM)
5.05 ± 0.18
2.39 ± 0.10
4.31 ± 0.13
0.68 ± 0.04
0.42 ± 0.02
-0.08 ± 0.01
1.10 ± 0.06
1.86
STRAND (I2SB)
7.10 ± 0.17
1.53 ± 0.05
7.47 ± 0.10
0.67 ± 0.03
1.05 ± 0.06
0.33 ± 0.01
0.80 ± 0.04
1.14
Jurkat
STRAND (FM)
4.97 ± 0.16
2.72 ± 0.12
4.56 ± 0.10
0.45 ± 0.03
0.28 ± 0.02
-0.10 ± 0.01
0.93 ± 0.04
1.86
STRAND (I2SB)
7.19 ± 0.16
1.82 ± 0.07
7.58 ± 0.09
0.44 ± 0.03
0.64 ± 0.04
0.34 ± 0.01
0.78 ± 0.04
1.14
RPE1
STRAND (FM)
4.93 ± 0.14
5.13 ± 0.22
4.50 ± 0.07
1.13 ± 0.04
0.97 ± 0.04
-0.19 ± 0.01
2.33 ± 0.10
1.86
STRAND (I2SB)
7.04 ± 0.14
2.62 ± 0.10
7.93 ± 0.08
1.01 ± 0.04
1.76 ± 0.07
0.47 ± 0.01
1.39 ± 0.05
1.14
Appendix
Table S13: Flow matching vs. diffusion. Bridge matching (I2SB) vs. flow-matching paired ablation.
Dataset
Method
Discr. Cos ↑
E-Dist ↓
Dir. Match ↑
Prec.@N ↑
Ov.@N ↑
Δ Pearson ↑
MSE ↓
Avg. Rank ↓
K562
±200 TSS
5.16 ± 0.18
1.70 ± 0.08
6.54 ± 0.10
0.72 ± 0.04
0.87 ± 0.04
0.22 ± 0.01
0.87 ± 0.05
1.14
gRNA
5.24 ± 0.18
1.75 ± 0.08
6.39 ± 0.10
0.71 ± 0.04
0.83 ± 0.04
0.20 ± 0.01
0.89 ± 0.05
1.86
Jurkat
±200 TSS
5.26 ± 0.16
1.95 ± 0.09
6.84 ± 0.09
0.50 ± 0.03
0.54 ± 0.04
0.26 ± 0.01
0.80 ± 0.04
2.00
gRNA
5.36 ± 0.17
1.81 ± 0.09
7.04 ± 0.08
0.50 ± 0.03
0.55 ± 0.04
0.29 ± 0.01
0.77 ± 0.04
1.00
RPE1
±200 TSS
5.16 ± 0.14
3.31 ± 0.14
7.78 ± 0.08
1.25 ± 0.05
1.98 ± 0.07
0.46 ± 0.01
1.64 ± 0.07
2.00
gRNA
5.22 ± 0.15
3.06 ± 0.14
7.83 ± 0.08
1.26 ± 0.05
2.04 ± 0.08
0.47 ± 0.01
1.57 ± 0.07
1.00
Appendix
Table S14: Sensitivity to perturbation-coordinate definition. Few-shot benchmark results using the default ±200 bp TSS-centered proxy versus exact gRNA-centered perturbation regions when guide coordinates are available. Only the coordinate definition is changed; data splits, model architecture, training protocol, and evaluation metrics are fixed. Dir. Match, Prec.@N, Ov.@N, and Discr. Cos are scaled by ×10 ; MSE is scaled by ×100 .
Runtime (hours)
Method
Preprocessing
Training
Total
GEARS
22.3
6.2
28.5
STATE
2.8
19.4
22.2
STRAND
9.4
15.3
24.7
Appendix
Table S15: Training runtime. Single-GPU wall-clock hours aggregated over five matched configurations (Jurkat and RPE1 with both gene panels, and K562 with 2k HVGs). Preprocessing includes method-specific data preparation.
Predicting cellular transcriptional responses to genetic perturbations is a central problem in single-cell biology, especially in the zero-shot setting where the perturbed gene or gene combination is unseen during training. A major difficulty is that perturbation effects are not determined by expression state alone: they depend on how the perturbed gene product influences other genes and proteins, how those downstream factors act on cis-regulatory elements, and which regulatory programs are active in the current cell state. To better capture this biological complexity, we propose CisTransCell, a cell-conditioned multi-modal framework for single-cell perturbation prediction that augments each gene with two complementary priors: a regulatory-sequence prior that captures how the gene is controlled, and a coding-sequence prior that captures what the gene product does. By integrating these priors with cellular expression state, CisTransCell models perturbation response as a cascade from gene function to regulatory control to downstream transcriptional change. Experiments on benchmark single-cell perturbation datasets show that CisTransCell achieves strong performance in zero-shot perturbation prediction.
Wei Zhang, Xun Jiang, Yuesi Xi +1
1L3S Research Center, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany · School of Clinical Medicine & Laboratory Medicine, Jiangsu University, China · Institute for Information Processing (tnt), Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany.
Predicting transcriptional responses to genetic perturbations is fundamental to functional genomics and therapeutic discovery. Recent deep learning models have shown promise in single-cell perturbation response prediction, but they typically generate each response in isolation, without explicitly leveraging related perturbations. We introduce PT-RAG (Perturbation-aware Two-stage Retrieval-Augmented Generation), a plug-in retrieval-and-conditioning module for generative cellular perturbation response. PT-RAG augments an existing perturbation-response backbone with learned access to related perturbation contexts. The key challenge is that relevance is not fixed in this setting: functionally related genes may elicit different effects across cell types. PT-RAG addresses this with a two-stage retrieval mechanism: GenePT-based semantic retrieval first identifies K candidate perturbations, after which a differentiable Gumbel-Softmax selector adaptively selects retrieved contexts conditioned on the control cell state, the query perturbation, and each candidate perturbation. We evaluate PT-RAG on two backbones, a STATE-style generator used as a frozen random reservoir and a fully trained scGPT, across cross-cell-type and cross-perturbation generalization tasks. PT-RAG consistently improves distributional similarity and often overall predictive quality; for example, on scGPT cross-cell-type results, the 2-Wasserstein distance drops by 5.9% relative to scGPT alone. The code to reproduce our experiments is available at https://github.com/difra100/PT-RAG_NIPS.
Andrea Giuseppe Di Francesco, Andrea Rubbi, Rishabh Jain +1
Predicting single-cell transcriptomic responses to genetic perturbations is central to functional genomics and virtual-cell modeling. Existing approaches, however, typically predict an entire expression profile as a whole, leaving the order in which individual gene responses are generated unmodeled. To address this problem, we introduce \textbf{D2R2} (Discrete Diffusion with Regulation Reinforcement), which reformulates perturbation prediction as regulation-guided gene-wise progressive generation. A Masked Discrete Diffusion Model represents expression as ordinal tokens and reconstructs a fully masked profile step by step, allowing generated gene responses to condition those that remain masked. A Regulatory Policy Module initializes the generation policy from a gene regulatory network inferred from control cells and adapts it to the perturbation and current partially generated state. Then, group-relative policy optimization refines only the ordering policy using final perturbation-effect agreement as reward. Across Norman19 and VCC-H1, D2R2 achieves the best performance on all five metrics on Norman19 and remains competitive on H1. Controlled ablations holding the generator and generation budget fixed show that biological-prior ordering improves over random ordering and is more reliable than uncertainty-based heuristics, whereas reversing the biological-prior ordering degrades every metric. Biological analyses further show that the refined policy prioritizes regulatory genes early while promoting perturbation-specific transcription factors and responsive genes. These results establish gene generation order as an effective, controllable, and biologically interpretable dimension of single-cell perturbation prediction.
Ninghan Fan, Qi Liu, Xunuo Zhu +9
Zhejiang University · City University of Hong Kong