Spatially resolved biology requires representations that preserve biological neighborhood structure rather than only exact cross-modal correspondences. Existing histology--transcriptomics objectives can emphasize instance-level matching even when non-paired spots share molecular or spatial context. We introduce BioKERN, a multimodal spatial representation-learning framework that incorporates biological structure as an explicit, learnable inductive bias. BioKERN constructs a training-time biological kernel by combining transcriptomic similarity and spatial proximity, then uses it to provide graded neighborhood supervision and regularize embedding geometry. Evaluation uses a fixed, model-independent biological neighborhood definition shared by all methods. Across Mouse Brain Visium and Human Liver GSE240429, BioKERN consistently improves biological-neighborhood retrieval over BLEEP in both single- and multi-scale settings. Controlled shared-architecture experiments show that most of the improvement arises from biological-kernel regularization rather than increased model capacity. These results support explicit biological geometry as an interpretable inductive bias for multimodal learning in spatial biology.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: BioKERN overview. Multimodal image and gene representations are regularized during training using a biological reference kernel combining transcriptomic and spatial similarity. The kernel defines graded neighborhoods and supervises global and local embedding geometry; inference requires only the learned image and transcriptomic embeddings.
Dataset / Scale
Ridge
PLIP linear
BLEEP
BLEEP ∗
BioKERN
Mouse Brain SS
0.4902
0.5407 ± .0033
0.5087 ± .0033
0.5327 ± .0036
0.6190 ± .0023
Mouse Brain MS
0.5567
0.5831 ± .0023
0.4960 ± .0056
0.5541 ± .0040
0.6716 ± .0021
Human Liver SS
0.0383
0.0307 ± .0001
0.0302 ± .0005
0.0309 ± .0004
0.0396 ± .0007
Human Liver MS
0.0403
0.0319 ± .0005
0.0312 ± .0005
0.0321 ± .0005
0.0408 ± .0005
Table 1: Biological-neighborhood retrieval across tissues and scales. Bio-mAP uses the same fixed Keval for every method; stochastic methods are mean ± standard deviation over five seeds.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Bio-mAP ↑
BioR@5% ↑
GeneR@5% ↑
SpatR@5% ↑
ClsHit@10 ↑
ExR@10 ↑
MedRank ↓
PCC@10 ↑
CCA
0.3910 ± 0.0000
0.3677 ± 0.0000
0.3558 ± 0.0000
0.3100 ± 0.0000
0.6409 ± 0.0000
0.3709 ± 0.0000
18.00 ± 0.00
0.7782 ± 0.0000
Ridge
0.4902 ± 0.0000
0.3919 ± 0.0000
0.4094 ± 0.0000
0.2941 ± 0.0000
0.6105 ± 0.0000
0.2509 ± 0.0000
27.00 ± 0.00
0.7670 ± 0.0000
PLIP zero-shot
0.1653 ± 0.0000
0.0647 ± 0.0000
0.0794 ± 0.0000
0.0599 ± 0.0000
0.1469 ± 0.0000
0.0327 ± 0.0000
202.50 ± 0.00
0.6716 ± 0.0000
PLIP linear
0.5407 ± 0.0033
0.4685 ± 0.0025
0.4288 ± 0.0028
0.4068 ± 0.0016
0.7175 ± 0.0042
0.4956 ± 0.0162
10.80 ± 0.75
0.7852 ± 0.0003
BLEEP
0.5087 ± 0.0033
0.4510 ± 0.0024
0.4034 ± 0.0043
0.3979 ± 0.0033
0.6928 ± 0.0045
0.4938 ± 0.0096
10.80 ± 0.75
0.7842 ± 0.0003
BLEEP ∗
0.5327 ± 0.0036
0.4674 ± 0.0036
0.4250 ± 0.0028
0.4091 ± 0.0048
0.7136 ± 0.0046
0.4887 ± 0.0086
10.90 ± 0.20
0.7851 ± 0.0004
Appendix
Table D.1: Biological Neighborhood Retrieval on Mouse Brain Visium (single-scale, PLIP 96×96 ). Mean ± standard deviation over five random seeds. All methods use the same fixed Keval ; bold indicates the best value in each column.
Method
Bio-mAP ↑
BioR@5% ↑
GeneR@5% ↑
SpatR@5% ↑
ClsHit@10 ↑
ExR@10 ↑
MedRank ↓
PCC@10 ↑
CCA
0.2813 ± 0.0000
0.2661 ± 0.0000
0.2585 ± 0.0000
0.2316 ± 0.0000
0.5162 ± 0.0000
0.2673 ± 0.0000
34.00 ± 0.00
0.7662 ± 0.0000
Ridge
0.5567 ± 0.0000
0.4596 ± 0.0000
0.4692 ± 0.0000
0.3484 ± 0.0000
0.6931 ± 0.0000
0.3327 ± 0.0000
19.00 ± 0.00
0.7753 ± 0.0000
PLIP zero-shot
0.0956 ± 0.0000
0.0178 ± 0.0000
0.0255 ± 0.0000
0.0197 ± 0.0000
0.0660 ± 0.0000
0.0036 ± 0.0000
326.00 ± 0.00
0.6399 ± 0.0000
PLIP linear
0.5831 ± 0.0023
0.5109 ± 0.0039
0.4494 ± 0.0037
0.4588 ± 0.0016
0.7471 ± 0.0051
0.5418 ± 0.0072
9.00 ± 0.00
0.7858 ± 0.0003
BLEEP
0.4960 ± 0.0056
0.4647 ± 0.0037
0.4074 ± 0.0033
0.4263 ± 0.0048
0.7183 ± 0.0043
0.5298 ± 0.0154
9.40 ± 0.49
0.7864 ± 0.0004
BLEEP ∗
0.5541 ± 0.0040
0.4981 ± 0.0032
0.4465 ± 0.0035
0.4458 ± 0.0023
0.7506 ± 0.0030
0.5549 ± 0.0071
8.60 ± 0.49
0.7876 ± 0.0002
Appendix
Table D.2: Biological Neighborhood Retrieval on Mouse Brain Visium (multi-scale, PLIP 96×96+224×224 ). All methods use the same fixed Keval . Bold indicates the best value in each column.
Method
Bio-mAP ↑
BioR@5% ↑
GeneR@5% ↑
SpatR@5% ↑
ClsHit@10 ↑
ExR@10 ↑
MedRank ↓
PCC@10 ↑
CCA
0.0265 ± 0.0000
0.0513 ± 0.0000
0.0518 ± 0.0000
0.0511 ± 0.0000
0.1974 ± 0.0000
0.0053 ± 0.0000
1129.0 ± 0.0
0.8574 ± 0.0000
Ridge
0.0383 ± 0.0000
0.0696 ± 0.0000
0.0742 ± 0.0000
0.0552 ± 0.0000
0.1916 ± 0.0000
0.0048 ± 0.0000
1152.0 ± 0.0
0.8366 ± 0.0000
PLIP zero-shot
0.0312 ± 0.0000
0.0553 ± 0.0000
0.0754 ± 0.0000
0.0498 ± 0.0000
0.3088 ± 0.0000
0.0057 ± 0.0000
951.0 ± 0.0
0.8322 ± 0.0000
PLIP linear
0.0307 ± 0.0001
0.0612 ± 0.0003
0.0585 ± 0.0012
0.0597 ± 0.0006
0.1869 ± 0.0007
0.0048 ± 0.0010
1140.4 ± 5.95
0.8527 ± 0.0003
BLEEP
0.0302 ± 0.0005
0.0578 ± 0.0012
0.0494 ± 0.0012
0.0651 ± 0.0014
0.2125 ± 0.0017
0.0074 ± 0.0012
1043.0 ± 23.1
0.8551 ± 0.0004
BLEEP ∗
0.0309 ± 0.0004
0.0580 ± 0.0011
0.0498 ± 0.0012
0.0688 ± 0.0009
0.2116 ± 0.0043
0.0076 ± 0.0014
1020.2 ± 4.31
0.8525 ± 0.0002
Appendix
Table D.3: Biological Neighborhood Retrieval on Human Liver GSE240429 (single-scale). Train: A1+B1+D1; test: C1. All methods use the same fixed Keval . Bold indicates the best value in each column.
Method
Bio-mAP ↑
BioR@5% ↑
GeneR@5% ↑
SpatR@5% ↑
ClsHit@10 ↑
ExR@10 ↑
MedRank ↓
PCC@10 ↑
CCA
0.0271 ± 0.0000
0.0546 ± 0.0000
0.0532 ± 0.0000
0.0534 ± 0.0000
0.2035 ± 0.0000
0.0062 ± 0.0000
1084.0 ± 0.0
0.8578 ± 0.0000
Ridge
0.0403 ± 0.0000
0.0765 ± 0.0000
0.0761 ± 0.0000
0.0589 ± 0.0000
0.1945 ± 0.0000
0.0075 ± 0.0000
1097.0 ± 0.0
0.8381 ± 0.0000
PLIP zero-shot
0.0293 ± 0.0000
0.0527 ± 0.0000
0.0638 ± 0.0000
0.0522 ± 0.0000
0.2553 ± 0.0000
0.0053 ± 0.0000
1072.0 ± 0.0
0.8317 ± 0.0000
PLIP linear
0.0319 ± 0.0005
0.0645 ± 0.0015
0.0571 ± 0.0015
0.0607 ± 0.0010
0.1822 ± 0.0022
0.0062 ± 0.0014
1109.6 ± 13.2
0.8528 ± 0.0003
BLEEP
0.0312 ± 0.0005
0.0601 ± 0.0010
0.0481 ± 0.0029
0.0688 ± 0.0012
0.2122 ± 0.0021
0.0068 ± 0.0017
970.4 ± 10.9
0.8556 ± 0.0006
BLEEP ∗
0.0321 ± 0.0005
0.0604 ± 0.0010
0.0486 ± 0.0017
0.0718 ± 0.0010
0.2116 ± 0.0017
0.0098 ± 0.0014
960.0 ± 12.8
0.8532 ± 0.0004
Appendix
Table D.4: Biological Neighborhood Retrieval on Human Liver GSE240429 (multi-scale). All methods use the same fixed Keval . Bold indicates the best value in each column.
Scale
Method
Bio-mAP
Step Δ
Interpretation
SS
BLEEP
0.5087
–
baseline
BLEEP ∗
0.5327
+0.0240
architecture
Ret-only
0.5364
+0.0037
objective
BioKERN
0.6190
+0.0826
biological regularization
Shuffled Kernel
0.4939
–
sanity check
MS
BLEEP
0.4960
–
baseline
Appendix
Table E.1: Sequential effect decomposition on Mouse Brain Visium. “Step Δ ” is the change from the preceding model in the additive path. The biological regularization step explains 74.9% (SS) and 63.4% (MS) of the total gain.
Scale
Method
Bio-mAP
Step Δ
Interpretation
SS
BLEEP
0.0302
–
baseline
BLEEP ∗
0.0309
+0.0007
architecture
Ret-only
0.0313
+0.0004
objective
BioKERN
0.0396
+0.0083
biological regularization
Shuffled Kernel
0.0301
–
sanity check
MS
BLEEP
0.0312
–
baseline
Appendix
Table E.2: Sequential effect decomposition on Human Liver GSE240429. The biological regularization step explains 88.3% (SS) and 90.6% (MS) of the total gain.
Setting
Bio-mAP
BioR@5%
GeneR@5%
SpatR@5%
ClsHit@10
ExR@10
MedRank
PCC@10
Kernel design
BioKERN
0.6190 ± 0.0023
0.5155 ± 0.0028
0.4482 ± 0.0021
0.4348 ± 0.0029
0.7241 ± 0.0034
0.4938 ± 0.0107
10.50 ± 0.45
0.7862 ± 0.0002
w/o Bio Kernel
0.5370 ± 0.0042
0.4714 ± 0.0043
0.4277 ± 0.0049
0.4110 ± 0.0017
0.7195 ± 0.0060
0.4818 ± 0.0040
10.40 ± 0.49
0.7855 ± 0.0002
Kgene only
0.5834 ± 0.0009
0.4953 ± 0.0024
0.4496 ± 0.0018
0.4081 ± 0.0018
0.7228 ± 0.0043
0.4775 ± 0.0112
11.40 ± 0.49
0.7862 ± 0.0003
Kspat only
0.5880 ± 0.0026
0.4969 ± 0.0020
0.4254 ± 0.0032
0.4344 ± 0.0035
0.7191 ± 0.0014
0.5018 ± 0.0103
11.00 ± 0.00
0.7853 ± 0.0003
Fixed α=0.5
0.6201 ± 0.0035
0.5154 ± 0.0034
0.4458 ± 0.0037
0.4351 ± 0.0010
0.7223 ± 0.0015
0.4855 ± 0.0141
11.20 ± 0.68
0.7860 ± 0.0004
Appendix
Table F.1: Ablation study on Mouse Brain Visium, single-scale. All variants share the ResidualAdapter backbone and the same fixed evaluation kernel as the main benchmark.
Setting
Bio-mAP
BioR@5%
GeneR@5%
SpatR@5%
ClsHit@10
ExR@10
MedRank
PCC@10
BioKERN
0.6716 ± 0.0021
0.5587 ± 0.0034
0.4713 ± 0.0024
0.4764 ± 0.0018
0.7596 ± 0.0033
0.5455 ± 0.0125
8.90 ± 0.20
0.7881 ± 0.0002
w/o Bio Kernel
0.5628 ± 0.0052
0.5044 ± 0.0038
0.4499 ± 0.0027
0.4508 ± 0.0032
0.7597 ± 0.0032
0.5542 ± 0.0031
9.20 ± 0.40
0.7882 ± 0.0004
Kgene only
0.6157 ± 0.0031
0.5278 ± 0.0028
0.4688 ± 0.0027
0.4401 ± 0.0020
0.7616 ± 0.0025
0.5255 ± 0.0173
9.70 ± 0.75
0.7880 ± 0.0002
Kspat only
0.6308 ± 0.0036
0.5313 ± 0.0047
0.4335 ± 0.0027
0.4760 ± 0.0028
0.7428 ± 0.0043
0.5433 ± 0.0072
9.00 ± 0.00
0.7864 ± 0.0002
Fixed α=0.5
0.6711 ± 0.0032
0.5577 ± 0.0031
0.4668 ± 0.0030
0.4812 ± 0.0020
0.7580 ± 0.0047
0.5425 ± 0.0096
9.00 ± 0.55
0.7876 ± 0.0004
Shuffled Kernel
0.5042 ± 0.0056
0.4683 ± 0.0045
0.4172 ± 0.0034
0.4259 ± 0.0053
0.7317 ± 0.0027
0.5222 ± 0.0161
9.80 ± 0.40
0.7866 ± 0.0004
Appendix
Table F.2: Ablation study on Mouse Brain Visium, multi-scale. All variants use the same fixed evaluation kernel as the main benchmark.
Setting
Bio-mAP
BioR@5%
GeneR@5%
SpatR@5%
ClsHit@10
ExR@10
MedRank
PCC@10
BioKERN
0.0396 ± 0.0007
0.0802 ± 0.0017
0.0835 ± 0.0023
0.0694 ± 0.0005
0.2175 ± 0.0021
0.0077 ± 0.0016
964.2 ± 5.34
0.8576 ± 0.0002
w/o Bio Kernel
0.0314 ± 0.0003
0.0584 ± 0.0008
0.0502 ± 0.0016
0.0686 ± 0.0009
0.2099 ± 0.0050
0.0079 ± 0.0018
1012.0 ± 9.94
0.8527 ± 0.0005
Kgene only
0.0445 ± 0.0003
0.0895 ± 0.0014
0.1197 ± 0.0010
0.0617 ± 0.0002
0.2171 ± 0.0061
0.0063 ± 0.0007
1028.2 ± 5.46
0.8573 ± 0.0002
Kspat only
0.0298 ± 0.0005
0.0548 ± 0.0014
0.0404 ± 0.0017
0.0722 ± 0.0006
0.2055 ± 0.0034
0.0094 ± 0.0010
968.2 ± 11.7
0.8531 ± 0.0004
Fixed α=0.5
0.0376 ± 0.0007
0.0752 ± 0.0016
0.0727 ± 0.0036
0.0707 ± 0.0009
0.2175 ± 0.0029
0.0067 ± 0.0007
969.2 ± 9.43
0.8567 ± 0.0003
Shuffled Kernel
0.0294 ± 0.0004
0.0559 ± 0.0013
0.0473 ± 0.0019
0.0663 ± 0.0004
0.2081 ± 0.0048
0.0070 ± 0.0017
1019.6 ± 12.0
0.8543 ± 0.0005
Appendix
Table F.3: Ablation study on Human Liver GSE240429, single-scale. All variants use the same fixed evaluation kernel and cross-slice spatial masking as the main benchmark.
Setting
Bio-mAP
BioR@5%
GeneR@5%
SpatR@5%
ClsHit@10
ExR@10
MedRank
PCC@10
BioKERN
0.0408 ± 0.0005
0.0820 ± 0.0014
0.0802 ± 0.0016
0.0725 ± 0.0012
0.2173 ± 0.0041
0.0097 ± 0.0015
923.8 ± 16.3
0.8581 ± 0.0002
w/o Bio Kernel
0.0320 ± 0.0004
0.0597 ± 0.0009
0.0485 ± 0.0013
0.0708 ± 0.0008
0.2086 ± 0.0017
0.0080 ± 0.0004
979.6 ± 21.0
0.8532 ± 0.0004
Kgene only
0.0403 ± 0.0002
0.0824 ± 0.0007
0.0793 ± 0.0016
0.0634 ± 0.0008
0.2124 ± 0.0051
0.0074 ± 0.0006
1004.2 ± 14.6
0.8583 ± 0.0002
Kspat only
0.0318 ± 0.0006
0.0603 ± 0.0018
0.0446 ± 0.0019
0.0726 ± 0.0006
0.2116 ± 0.0012
0.0080 ± 0.0003
917.8 ± 15.0
0.8538 ± 0.0005
Fixed α=0.5
0.0382 ± 0.0005
0.0763 ± 0.0016
0.0689 ± 0.0025
0.0740 ± 0.0012
0.2128 ± 0.0035
0.0083 ± 0.0009
918.6 ± 14.2
0.8570 ± 0.0003
Shuffled Kernel
0.0291 ± 0.0005
0.0558 ± 0.0013
0.0441 ± 0.0024
0.0676 ± 0.0007
0.2066 ± 0.0036
0.0091 ± 0.0011
984.6 ± 8.19
0.8549 ± 0.0004
Appendix
Table F.4: Ablation study on Human Liver GSE240429, multi-scale. All variants use the same fixed evaluation kernel and cross-slice spatial masking as the main benchmark.
λs
Bio-mAP
BioR@5%
BioR@10%
ExR@10
0.0
0.5556
0.4776
0.5209
0.5018
0.1
0.5863
0.4962
0.5509
0.4855
0.2
0.6048
0.5086
0.5709
0.4891
0.3
0.6216
0.5165
0.5855
0.4909
0.5
0.6412
0.5288
0.6018
0.4745
1.0
0.6671
0.5415
0.6127
0.4382
Appendix
Table G.1: Sensitivity to λs on Mouse Brain Visium single-scale (seed 42). The default setting is λs=0.3 .
Epoch
α (mean ± std)
Dominant signal
5
0.6022 ± 0.0003
gene
10
0.6048 ± 0.0005
gene
20
0.6093 ± 0.0008
gene
30
0.6124 ± 0.0009
gene
40
0.6142 ± 0.0009
gene
50
0.6149 ± 0.0009
gene
Appendix
Table G.2: Trajectory of the learned biological-kernel weight α on Mouse Brain Visium (single-scale, five seeds).
Spatial transcriptomics provides a molecularly rich description of tissue organization, enabling unsupervised discovery of tissue niches -- spatially coherent regions of distinct cell-type composition and function that are relevant to both biological research and clinical interpretation. However, spatial transcriptomics remains costly and scarce, while H&E histology is abundant but carries a less granular signal. We propose to leverage paired spatial transcriptomics and H&E data to transfer transcriptomics-derived niche structure to a histology-only model via cross-modal distillation. Across multiple tissue types and disease contexts, the distilled model achieves substantially higher agreement with transcriptomics-derived niche structure than unsupervised morphology-based baselines trained on identical image features, and recovers biologically meaningful neighborhood composition as confirmed by cell-type analysis. The resulting framework leverages paired spatial transcriptomic and H&E data during training, and can then be applied to held-out tissue regions using histology alone, without any transcriptomic input at inference time.
Arbel Hizmi, Artemii Bakulin, Shai Bagon +1
Weizmann Institute of Science · Reichman University
Spatial transcriptomics (ST) links tissue morphology with molecular programs, motivating multimodal pretraining methods that align histology images with gene expression. However, existing approaches suffer from two key limitations: spatially informative gene selection is often dominated by ubiquitous housekeeping genes, leading to weakly discriminative representations, and independent spot-patch alignment fails to capture spatial dependencies that are critical for tissue organization. To address these challenges, we introduce PaSTel, a hierarchical multimodal pretraining framework that integrates biological priors at three levels. At the spot level, TF-IDF reweighting is used to identify spatially informative genes; at the functional level, curated KEGG pathways serve as anchors for encoding global biological semantics; and at the regional level, spatial clustering aggregates neighboring spots to model meso-scale tissue structure. Across multiple downstream tasks, PaSTel consistently outperforms existing vision and vision-omics encoders, demonstrating that incorporating multiscale biological priors yields more informative and transferable representations for spatial transcriptomics.
Azim Dehghani Amirabad, Junchao Zhu, Pushpak Pati +3
Spatial transcriptomics provides spatially resolved molecular profiling, but its cost, limited throughput and experimental complexity hinder routine large-scale use. Predicting spatial gene expression from hematoxylin-and-eosin-stained histology images offers a scalable alternative, yet remains challenging because histology provides only an indirect morphological view of molecular activity. Existing methods typically decode expression from visual features in a single stage, even when enhanced with spatial aggregation, retrieval or multi-resolution fusion. This formulation is restrictive because spot-level expression reflects not only local morphology but also cellular identity, neighborhood composition and tissue-level organization. We propose BCARP, a Biology-guided Context-Aware Residual Propagation framework for histology-guided spatial transcriptomics prediction. Instead of directly predicting gene expression from histology embeddings, BCARP treats them as morphology visual priors and progressively refines spot representations in a transcriptomics-oriented latent space. Each refinement step integrates nuclei-guided local cellular context with prototype-guided global context propagation, enabling information exchange across both neighboring and spatially distant spots. A pattern-scale decoder further separates spatial expression into pattern prediction from raw expression with scale calibration. Evaluated on three ST datasets and ten HEST-1k cohorts, BCARP achieves the highest mean correlation-based performance against other baselines. Numerical results support biology-guided local-global residual propagation as an effective alternative to visual decoding for histology-to-transcriptomics prediction.
Vu Van An, Long D. Nguyen, Ho Viet Duc Luong +1
Hanoi University of Science and Technology Hanoi, 10000, Vietnam · Victoria University of Wellington Wellington, 6012, New Zealand