Organizations: Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK · Cambridge Centre for AI in Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK · Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK · Cambridge Institute for Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Diseases (CIITID), University of Cambridge, UK · Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA · Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA · Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK · Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Modeling gene regulation in single cells requires jointly representing DNA sequence, chromatin accessibility, and gene expression across regulatory scales. Sequence-based models capture DNA-level regulatory grammar but often lack cell-level resolution, whereas many single-cell omics models represent genes and peaks as fixed-vocabulary tokens without their underlying sequence. Here, we present MUSS, a sequence-based multi-scale model for single-cell gene regulation that preserves both DNA-level and cell-level resolution. MUSS derives peak- and gene-level representations from DNA using a frozen pre-trained sequence encoder and integrates them through peak-peak self-attention and distance-biased peak-gene interactions. Peak masked language modeling followed by training on paired scATAC-seq and scRNA-seq aligns these representations with cell-specific regulatory states. Across gene expression prediction, enhancer-gene linking, motif-guided regulatory prioritization, and zero-shot cell clustering, MUSS achieves strong performance against sequence-based and single-cell omics baselines. It further predicts expression for genes and peaks unseen during task training. These results support sequence-grounded, multi-scale representations for decoding cell-type-specific regulatory programs. Code, datasets, and model checkpoints are available at https://github.com/Lotfollahi-lab/MUSS_neurips26.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Muss constructs unified sequence-based representations for chromatin-accessible regions (peaks) and genes to capture global, multi-scale regulatory semantics. The illustration incorporates artwork created with BioRender.
Figure 2: Overview of our proposed Muss . Muss first constructs sequence-based embeddings for peaks and genes using a frozen AlphaGenome encoder. It then models regulatory dependencies through a multi-scale encoder, including peak–peak self-attention and bidirectional cross-scale attention. Finally, Muss is trained with peak masked language modeling and gene expression prediction to learn peak- and gene-level regulatory semantics.
PBMC10K [ 48 ]
BMMC [ 29 ]
Openproblem [ 7 ]
Bone [ 39 ]
Model
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
R2↑
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
R2↑
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
R2↑
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
R2↑
Unseen sequence
Seen cell types.
Seq
Borzoi [ 28 ]
0.560
0.237
-0.293
0.539
0.424
0.025
0.613
0.486
0.242
0.487
0.313
-0.040
AlphaGenome [ 2 ]
0.609
0.402
-0.005
0.650
0.450
0.144
0.774
0.690
0.522
0.615
0.545
0.262
scooby [ 22 ]
0.533
0.353
-0.088
0.655
0.543
0.293
0.709
0.696
0.312
0.655
0.648
0.278
Table 1: Gene expression prediction from scATAC-seq to scRNA-seq under four evaluation settings defined by sequence split ( seen seq vs. unseen seq ) and cell-type split ( seen cell types vs. unseen cell types ). Higher is better for PCC, CCC, and R2 . Metrics are computed on per-cell-type pseudobulk. Best and second-best values are bold and underlined, respectively.
Figure 3: Distance-stratified AUROC on the balanced GeneHancer enhancer–gene linking benchmark. Left: eQTL-supported pairs; right: CHi-C-supported pairs. Error bars are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals over 1,000 resamples; the dashed line denotes chance.
Model type
Model
ARI ↑
FMI ↑
NMI ↑
AMI ↑
Bulk
AlphaGenome [ 2 ]
0.1032 ± 0.0000
0.3814 ± 0.0000
0.1646 ± 0.0000
0.1633 ± 0.0000
Borzoi [ 28 ]
0.0837 ± 0.0010
0.3577 ± 0.0013
0.1450 ± 0.0006
0.1437 ± 0.0006
EpiBERT [ 23 ]
0.0909 ± 0.0002
0.3642 ± 0.0002
0.1499 ± 0.0008
0.1486 ± 0.0008
GET [ 16 ]
0.0916 ± 0.0002
0.3671 ± 0.0004
0.1486 ± 0.0001
0.1473 ± 0.0001
Single cell
PeakVI [ 1 ]
0.2915 ± 0.0005
0.5041 ± 0.0004
0.4623 ± 0.0004
0.4615 ± 0.0005
PoissonVI [ 30 ]
0.4103 ± 0.0045
0.5994 ± 0.0028
0.5656 ± 0.0035
0.5649 ± 0.0035
Table 2: Cell clustering results on PBMC169K [ 13 ] BIO_ddseq_1. Higher is better for all metrics. Values are mean ± standard deviation over 10 clustering seeds.
Type
Ablation
Unseen sequence
Seen sequence
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
R2↑
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
R2↑
Arch
w/o Sequence embedding
0.196 (-0.549)
0.132 (-0.600)
-0.330 (-0.837)
0.958 (-0.011)
0.947 (-0.016)
0.890 (-0.036)
w/o Cross-scale Interact
0.009 (-0.736)
0.002 (-0.730)
-1.422 (-1.929)
0.967 (-0.002)
0.959 (-0.004)
0.920 (-0.006)
Pos. Info
w/o Distance Reweighting
0.736 (-0.009)
0.722 (-0.010)
0.480 (-0.027)
0.967 (-0.002)
0.958 (-0.005)
0.915 (-0.011)
w/o Peak RoPE
0.725 (-0.020)
0.717 (-0.015)
0.454 (-0.053)
0.959 (-0.010)
0.953 (-0.010)
0.905 (-0.021)
w/o RBF distance
0.707 (-0.038)
0.700 (-0.032)
0.426 (-0.081)
0.959 (-0.010)
0.953 (-0.010)
0.904 (-0.022)
Table 3: BMMC gene expression ablations. Differences from the full Muss model are shown in parentheses.
Dataset
Sequence Encoder
Unseen sequence
Seen sequence
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
R2↑
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
R2↑
PBMC10K
Borzoi
0.698
0.655
0.439
0.914
0.885
0.798
NT-v3
0.459
0.409
0.083
0.912
0.887
0.801
AlphaGenome
0.684
0.663
0.409
0.909
0.895
0.811
BMMC
Borzoi
0.695
0.692
0.430
0.986
0.984
0.969
NT-v3
0.452
0.437
0.037
0.983
0.980
0.961
Table 4: Gene-expression prediction with different frozen DNA sequence encoders on PBMC10K, BMMC, and Openproblem (OP). Bold marks the best result per metric within each dataset and split, including ties.
Figure 4: Few-shot scaling curves for gene expression prediction on PBMC10K. The two panels show the PCC and CCC of Muss as the number of paired cells used for fine-tuning increases.
Figure 5: DNA sequence motif–informed peak–gene prioritization across genomic distances. Left: top-10 enrichment of known TF–gene links among top-ranked peaks (averaged per gene). Right: pairwise AUROC comparing positive peaks (broad and conservative definitions) to distance-matched controls. Error bars show 95% CI; dashed line indicates chance.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Value
Training objective
Peak MLM
Dataset
PBMC169K
Input sequence embedding
AlphaGenome embedding
Input dimension
3072
Model dimension
2048
Encoder layer types
1 layer of peak self-attention, 2 layers of cross interaction blocks
Appendix
Table 5: Muss hyperparameters for peak MLM pre-training.
Dataset
Held-out cell types
PBMC10K
TEM/TEMRA cytotoxic T cells; regulatory T cells; classical monocytes;
Table 6: Held-out cell types used in the unseen-cell-type setting.
Hyperparameter
Value
Initialization
Peak MLM checkpoint
Input sequence embedding
AlphaGenome embedding
Input dimension
3072
Model dimension
2048
Encoder layer types
1 layer of peak self-attention, 2 layers of cross interaction blocks
Number of attention heads
16
Appendix
Table 7: Muss hyperparameters for gene expression prediction fine-tuning.
Model
ARI
FMI
NMI
AMI
AlphaGenome
0.1032±0.0000
0.3814±0.0000
0.1646±0.0000
0.1633±0.0000
ChromFound
0.4835±0.0082
0.6604±0.0042
0.5950±0.0036
0.5944±0.0036
PCA
0.1649±0.0221
0.4473
0.2856
0.2845
Muss
0.5377±0.0008
0.6973±0.0006
0.6085±0.0003
0.6079±0.0003
Appendix
Table 8: PCA comparison for zero-shot cell clustering. Values are mean ± standard deviation where reported; PCA standard deviations are available only for ARI.
Training cells N
Epochs
Total optimizer steps
1
200
200
2
200
400
4
200
800
8
150
1,200
16
100
1,600
32
80
2,560
Appendix
Table 9: Training schedule for the PBMC10K few-shot evaluation. Since the batch size is 1, the total number of optimizer steps is equal to N× epochs.
Dataset
CT
EpiAgent
Muss
PBMC10K
Seen
0.763 / 0.524 / 0.092
0.909 / 0.895 / 0.811
Unseen
0.746 / 0.503 / −0.009
0.893 / 0.887 / 0.788
BMMC
Seen
0.819 / 0.575 / 0.131
0.983 / 0.981 / 0.962
Unseen
0.818 / 0.620 / 0.248
0.948 / 0.937 / 0.873
Openproblem
Seen
0.876 / 0.683 / 0.116
0.996 / 0.995 / 0.990
Unseen
0.860 / 0.669 / 0.079
0.979 / 0.978 / 0.956
Appendix
Table 10: EpiAgent comparison on seen sequences. Entries are PCC / CCC / R2 ; CT denotes the cell-type split.
Model
PBMC10K
BMMC
Openproblem
Bone
Seen sequences
CMAE
0.861
0.680
0.627
0.827
scMoGNN
0.903
0.720
0.689
0.805
ChromFound
0.837
0.658
0.534
0.774
Muss
0.876
0.732
0.691
0.811
Unseen sequences
Appendix
Table 11: Single-cell gene expression PCC. Bold denotes the highest value within each sequence setting.
Seen sequences
Unseen sequences
Model
Seen CT
Unseen CT
Seen CT
Unseen CT
CMAE
0.463±0.038
0.458±0.036
—
—
scMoGNN
0.859±0.059
0.827±0.049
—
—
ChromFound
0.856±0.007
0.822±0.007
—
—
Borzoi
0.719±0.019
0.690±0.016
0.567±0.022
0.550±0.016
AlphaGenome
0.696±0.046
0.650±0.058
0.656±0.012
0.628±0.020
Appendix
Table 12: BMMC pseudobulk PCC (mean ± standard deviation, five seeds). CT denotes cell types; dashes indicate unsupported unseen-sequence evaluation.
Table 14: EpiAgent unseen-sequence failure diagnostics. CT denotes the cell-type split. These values do not represent native unseen-gene support.
Genomic context
Unseen seq.
Seen seq.
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
PCC ↑
CCC ↑
Both sides ( Muss )
0.684
0.663
0.909
0.895
Upstream only
0.701
0.659
0.885
0.864
Appendix
Table 15: PBMC10K comparison of two-sided and upstream-only genomic context using AlphaGenome. Bold marks the better value per metric.
Model
ARI
FMI
NMI
AMI
AlphaGenome
0.1032±0.0000
0.3814±0.0000
0.1646±0.0000
0.1633±0.0000
Muss w/o peak MLM
0.1221±0.0006
0.3773±0.0005
0.2068±0.0007
0.2056±0.0007
Muss
0.5377±0.0008
0.6973±0.0006
0.6085±0.0003
0.6079±0.0003
Appendix
Table 16: Peak-MLM ablation for zero-shot cell clustering. Entries are means ± standard deviations.
Model
AUROC (bal.)
AUPRC (bal.)
AUPRC micro
AUPRC macro
NDCG@10
HR@10
Muss
0.6590
0.6499
0.1120
0.2051
0.2095
0.5571
Muss w/o peak MLM
0.6106
0.6210
0.0422
0.1389
0.1479
0.3947
Difference
0.0484
0.0289
0.0698
0.0662
0.0616
0.1624
Appendix
Table 17: Peak-MLM ablation for eQTL enhancer–gene linking. “Bal.” denotes the balanced positive/negative evaluation. The last row is full minus ablated.
AUPRC
NDCG
HR
Model
Micro
Macro
@5
@10
@20
@5
@10
@20
AlphaGenome
0.0718
0.1363
0.1233
0.1403
0.1694
0.2999
0.4114
0.5421
Borzoi
0.0834
0.1581
0.1452
0.1673
0.1998
0.3488
0.4702
0.6052
GET
0.0357
0.1014
0.0971
0.1072
0.1288
0.2813
0.3982
0.5377
EpiBERT
0.0445
0.1016
0.0996
0.1081
0.1317
0.2847
0.3958
0.5245
Muss
0.1271
0.2500
0.2331
0.2664
0.3157
0.4868
0.6492
0.7784
Appendix
Table 18: eQTL enhancer–gene retrieval within ±1 Mb, at approximately 1:36 class imbalance. Higher is better.
Distance
Model
AUPRC micro
AUPRC macro
NDCG@10
HR@10
All
PCA+Ridge
0.0532
0.0920
0.1054
0.4056
Muss
0.1271
0.2500
0.2664
0.6492
0–50 kb
PCA+Ridge
0.2008
0.3438
0.3955
0.8677
Muss
0.2039
0.3672
0.3974
0.8478
50–100 kb
PCA+Ridge
0.1500
0.3872
0.4640
0.8690
Muss
0.1875
0.4859
0.5535
0.8946
Appendix
Table 19: PCA+Ridge versus Muss for eQTL retrieval. Bold indicates the higher value within each distance bin.
Model
Mean (ms/cell)
Median (ms/cell)
Throughput (cells/s)
CMAE
0.99
0.99
1,006
ChromFound
5.94
5.93
168
Muss
61.18
55.07
16.3
Appendix
Table 20: Inference on 2,000 BMMC test cells using one H200. Timing and throughput are reported with the precision of the measurements.
Peaks per cell
8,192
16,384
24,576
32,768
49,152
65,536
GPU memory (GB)
29.2
40.4
55.0
69.5
98.7
127.8
Appendix
Table 21: Training memory for simulated cells with increasing peak counts. Settings: BF16, one cell per GPU, memory-efficient exact attention.
Single-cell transcriptomics enables profiling of cellular states at unprecedented resolution, but its high dimensionality, sparsity, and technical batch effects pose significant challenges for representation learning. Existing single-cell foundation models typically encode each cell independently or only model cells from the same batch for denoising, thereby underutilizing the rich relational information across batches and cell types to model gene expression patterns. We argue that single-cell models can benefit from more informative cell-context modeling. By comparing consistency and variation across cells, models can capture fine-grained gene-gene dependencies associated with cell states, which are essential for learning high-quality representations. Inspired by the use of multiple sequence alignment (MSA) context in protein modeling, we propose CellMSA, a single-cell representation learning framework that introduces an MSA-inspired inductive bias into transcriptomic modeling. For each target cell, CellMSA retrieves relevant cells from different batches and biologically related cell types as context, and summarizes cross-cell patterns into a context-dependent gene-pair representation. This representation is then injected into a pair-aware target-cell encoder for fine-grained representation learning. We pretrain CellMSA on a large-scale human single-cell corpus of approximately 109 million cell observations, including 65.6 million primary observations. Experiments show that our framework consistently outperforms existing methods across multiple benchmarks. Code is available at the following repository: https://github.com/PharMolix/CellMSA.
Suyuan Zhao, Minghao Liu, Yizhen Luo +1
Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University · Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University · Tsinghua Institute of Multidisciplinary Biomedical Research (TIMBR), Tsinghua University +2
Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) capture transcription factor-target interactions and are central to understanding cell-state regulation and disease. Reconstructing GRNs from paired single-cell transcriptomic and chromatin accessibility data is promising but challenging: scATAC is extremely sparse, and most methods rely on fixed peak-to-gene links and weak supervision. We present EpiAwareNet, a prior-guided multi-omic Transformer framework that reconstructs GRNs from paired single-cell data using only lightweight biological priors. In Stage 1, EpiAwareNet learns joint gene-peak representations with a gene-peak cross-attention module, enabling data-driven, gene-specific aggregation of accessibility signals rather than hard-coded peak-to-gene assignments. In Stage 2, EpiAwareNet incorporates a bulk-derived GRN prior as noisy positive edges to provide weak supervision under label scarcity, refining regulatory scores while remaining robust to prior noise. In our experiments, EpiAwareNet improves GRN reconstruction over representative single- and multi-omic baselines and yields GRNs with greater biological plausibility, such as improved recovery of known regulatory interactions, suggesting that lightweight biological priors from bulk data can effectively guide single-cell GRN inference when combined with adaptive cross-modal representation learning. Code and data will be available at https://github.com/tianyang-x/EpiAwareNet_pub.
Tianyang Xu, Tianci Liu, Niraj Rayamajhi +4
Elmore Family School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA · Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA · School of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA
Background: Single-cell foundation models such as Geneformer and scGPT encode rich biological information, but whether this includes causal regulatory logic rather than statistical co-expression remains unclear. Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) can resolve superposition in neural networks by decomposing dense activations into interpretable features, yet they have not been systematically applied to biological foundation models. Results: We trained TopK SAEs on residual stream activations from all layers of Geneformer V2-316M (18 layers, d=1152) and scGPT whole-human (12 layers, d=512), producing atlases of 82525 and 24527 features, respectively. Both atlases confirm massive superposition, with 99.8 percent of features invisible to SVD. Systematic characterization reveals rich biological organization: 29 to 59 percent of features annotate to Gene Ontology, KEGG, Reactome, STRING, or TRRUST, with U-shaped layer profiles reflecting hierarchical abstraction. Features organize into co-activation modules (141 in Geneformer, 76 in scGPT), exhibit causal specificity (median 2.36x), and form cross-layer information highways (63 to 99.8 percent). When tested against genome-scale CRISPRi perturbation data, only 3 of 48 transcription factors (6.2 percent) show regulatory-target-specific feature responses. A multi-tissue control yields marginal improvement (10.4 percent, 5 of 48 TFs), establishing model representations as the bottleneck. Conclusions: These models have internalized organized biological knowledge, including pathway membership, protein interactions, functional modules, and hierarchical abstraction, yet they encode minimal causal regulatory logic. We release both feature atlases as interactive web platforms enabling exploration of more than 107000 features across 30 layers of two leading single-cell foundation models.
Ihor Kendiukhov
Department of Computer Science, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany