Decoding Cellular Logic: A Comprehensive Guide to Single-Cell Gene Regulatory Network Inference

Abstract

This article provides a thorough exploration of gene regulatory network (GRN) inference from single-cell data, a key methodology for understanding the transcriptional programs that define cell identity and function. Aimed at researchers and bioinformaticians, we cover foundational concepts, current computational methods—including SCENIC, DAZZLE, and Meta-TGLink—and the significant challenge of data sparsity or 'dropout.' The guide details practical workflows, troubleshooting strategies for real-world data, and essential validation techniques. By synthesizing insights from foundational principles to advanced applications, this resource equips scientists with the knowledge to robustly infer GRNs and gain deeper insights into developmental biology, disease mechanisms, and potential therapeutic targets.

The Blueprint of the Cell: Understanding Gene Regulatory Networks and Single-Cell Fundamentals

What is a Gene Regulatory Network? Defining Nodes, Edges, and Regulons

A Gene Regulatory Network (GRN) is a collection of molecular regulators that interact with each other and with other substances in the cell to govern the gene expression levels of mRNA and proteins, which in turn determine cellular function [1]. These networks play a central role in fundamental biological processes, including morphogenesis (the creation of body structures) and cellular differentiation, ensuring that genes are expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure appropriate functional outcomes [1] [2]. GRNs represent the intricate control systems that allow genetically identical cells to adopt diverse fates and functions, forming the blueprint that guides development and physiological responses from a single set of genetic instructions [3].

In single-celled organisms, GRNs primarily respond to the external environment, optimizing the cell for survival. In multicellular organisms, these networks have been co-opted to control complex body plans through gene cascades and morphogen gradients that provide positional information to cells within the developing embryo [1]. The study of GRNs has been revolutionized by technological advances, enabling researchers to move from understanding individual gene interactions to analyzing differential gene expression at a systems level [2].

Core Components of a GRN

Nodes: The Biological Entities

In a GRN, nodes represent the key biological entities involved in regulatory processes. These typically include:

• Transcription Factor (TF) Nodes: Proteins that regulate gene expression by binding to specific DNA sequences. TFs can activate or repress their target genes.
• Target Gene Nodes: Genes whose expression is regulated by transcription factors.
• Non-coding RNA Nodes: Regulatory RNA molecules, such as microRNAs, that can influence gene expression.
• Protein/Protein Complex Nodes: Molecular complexes that can modify or interact with transcription factors.
• Cellular Process Nodes: Biological processes that emerge from the network activity.

Nodes that lie along vertical lines in network diagrams are often associated with cell/environment interfaces, while others are free-floating and can diffuse within the cellular environment [1].

Edges: The Regulatory Interactions

Edges represent the functional relationships and interactions between nodes in the network. These connections can be categorized as:

• Inductive/Activating Edges: Represented by arrowheads or '+' signs, where an increase in the regulator leads to an increase in the target node [1].
• Inhibitory/Repressive Edges: Represented by filled circles, blunt arrows, or '-' signs, where an increase in the regulator leads to a decrease in the target node [1].
• Dual Edges: Where depending on context, the regulator can either activate or inhibit the target node.
• Physical Interaction Edges: Direct molecular interactions, such as TF binding to DNA.
• Regulatory Relationship Edges: Functional relationships that may not involve direct physical contact.

The edges form the wiring diagram of the regulatory network, creating chains of dependencies that can include feedback loops—cyclic chains that are crucial for maintaining cellular states and enabling dynamic responses [1].

Regulons: The Functional Units

A regulon represents a collection of genes regulated by a common transcription factor or set of transcription factors. This concept extends beyond simple TF-target relationships to encompass the complete set of regulatory interactions controlled by a particular regulatory program. In computational biology tools like SCENIC, regulons are identified by combining transcription factor binding motifs with co-expression patterns to define stable functional units of regulation [4]. Each regulon operates as a semi-autonomous module within the broader GRN, contributing to specific aspects of cellular function or identity.

Table 1: Core Components of a Gene Regulatory Network

Component	Biological Meaning	Representation in Models	Functional Role
Transcription Factor Node	Protein regulating gene expression	Node with high out-degree	Master regulator of gene expression
Target Gene Node	Gene being regulated	Node with high in-degree	Executor of cellular functions
Activating Edge	Transcriptional activation	Arrow or '+' sign	Turns on genetic programs
Inhibitory Edge	Transcriptional repression	Blunt arrow or '-' sign	Suppresses genetic programs
Regulon	TF + its target genes	Network module	Functional regulatory unit
Hub	Highly connected node	Node with many edges	Integration point for multiple signals

Structural and Functional Properties of GRNs

Network Topology and Architecture

Gene regulatory networks exhibit distinct topological properties that reflect their evolutionary origins and functional constraints. GRNs generally approximate a hierarchical scale-free network topology, characterized by a few highly connected nodes (hubs) and many poorly connected nodes [1] [2]. This structure is thought to evolve through preferential attachment of duplicated genes to more highly connected genes, with natural selection favoring networks with sparse connectivity [1].

Key topological features include:

• Node Degree: The number of relationships in which a node engages, with two types:
  • In-degree: Number of transcription factors regulating a gene
  • Out-degree: Number of genes bound by a transcription factor
• Hubs: Nodes with unusually high connectivity, including:
  • TF Hubs: Transcription factors that bind to many target genes
  • Gene Hubs: Genes regulated by many transcription factors
• Flux Capacity: The product of a node's in-degree and out-degree, representing the number of potential information paths passing through it [2].
• Betweenness: The number of shortest paths connecting node pairs that pass through a specific node, indicating nodes that centrally connect different network modules [2].

Network Motifs

GRNs contain characteristic network motifs—repetitive topological patterns that appear more frequently than in randomly generated networks [1]. These motifs represent basic computational elements that perform specific regulatory functions:

• Feed-forward Loops: Consist of three nodes where a top-level transcription factor regulates a second TF, and both jointly regulate a target gene. This motif can create different input-output behaviors, serving as persistence detectors, accelerators, or fold-change detectors [1].
• Feedback Loops: Create self-sustaining circuits that can maintain cellular states or generate oscillatory behaviors.
• Single-input Modules: A single transcription factor controlling multiple target genes with similar functions.

The enrichment of these motifs in GRNs has been proposed to follow convergent evolution as "optimal designs" for specific regulatory purposes, though some researchers argue their abundance may be a non-adaptive side-effect of network evolution [1].

Diagram 1: GRN structural elements showing hubs, feed-forward, and feedback loops.

GRN Inference Methods and Experimental Protocols

Computational Inference from Omics Data

The field of GRN inference has evolved significantly with advances in sequencing technologies, moving from microarray data to next-generation sequencing, and from bulk to single-cell and multi-omics approaches [4]. Current methods leverage diverse computational frameworks to reconstruct networks from experimental data:

Table 2: GRN Inference Methods and Their Applications

Method/Tool	Data Input Types	Modelling Approach	Regulatory Output	Key Applications
SCENIC/SCENIC+	scRNA-seq, scATAC-seq	Linear	Signed, weighted regulons	Cell identity, differentiation trajectories
CellOracle	scRNA-seq, ATAC-seq	Linear	Signed, weighted	Perturbation prediction, developmental trajectories
scGPT	scRNA-seq	Transformer-based	Gene embeddings	Multi-task prediction, batch integration
ANANSE	Bulk groups, contrasts	Linear	Weighted	Differential networks between conditions
GRaNIE	Paired/integrated multi-omics	Linear	Weighted	eQTL-informed networks, disease contexts
Inferelator 3.0	Unpaired multi-omics	Linear/non-linear	Weighted	Dynamic network inference, prokaryotes
Pando	Paired/integrated multi-omics	Linear/non-linear	Signed, weighted	Multi-omic network inference, TF binding prioritization

Multi-omics GRN Inference Protocol

The most robust GRN inference leverages multi-omics data, particularly combining transcriptomic and epigenomic information. Below is a detailed protocol for GRN inference from single-cell multi-omics data:

Protocol: GRN Inference with SCENIC+ from Paired scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq Data

Sample Preparation and Sequencing:

• Cell Preparation: Isolate single-cell suspensions from tissue of interest, ensuring high viability (>80%).
• Multi-ome Library Preparation: Use 10x Genomics Multiome (ATAC + Gene Expression) kit according to manufacturer's protocol.
• Sequencing: Target >20,000 read pairs per cell for gene expression and >25,000 read pairs per cell for chromatin accessibility.

Data Preprocessing:

• Quality Control:
  • Filter cells with <500 detected genes for RNA
  • Filter cells with <1,000 fragments for ATAC
  • Remove cells with >10% mitochondrial reads
• Normalization:
  • RNA data: SCTransform normalization
  • ATAC data: Term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) normalization
• Integration: Use weighted nearest neighbors (WNN) integration to align RNA and ATAC modalities.

GRN Inference with SCENIC+:

• Region-to-Gene Linking:
  • Identify candidate regulatory regions within 500kb of gene TSS
  • Calculate correlation between chromatin accessibility and gene expression
  • Retain links with FDR < 0.25 and correlation > 0.45
• TF-motif Analysis:
  • Scan regulatory regions for known TF motifs using cisTarget databases
  • Calculate motif enrichment for each region
• GRN Inference:
  • Run using default parameters: scenicplus --mode grn_inference
  • Use gradient boosting machines to model gene expression from TF expression and motif accessibility
• Regulon Processing:
  • Binarize regulons using AUCell: scenicplus --mode aucell
  • Calculate regulon specificity scores (RSS) for cell type identification

Downstream Analysis:

• Cell State Regulation: Identify key regulons driving cell state differences using differential RSS.
• Trajectory Analysis: Infer regulatory changes along differentiation trajectories with PAGA or RNA velocity.
• Validation: Compare inferred networks with publicly available ChIP-seq data or perform CRISPR perturbations for key predictions.

Diagram 2: Multi-omics GRN inference workflow from data collection to final model.

Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs) for GRN Analysis

The Emergence of scFMs in GRN Research

Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represent a transformative approach in computational biology, leveraging large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast single-cell datasets to interpret cellular systems [5]. These models adapt transformer architectures—originally developed for natural language processing—to single-cell omics data, treating individual cells as "sentences" and genes or genomic features as "words" or "tokens" [5]. This paradigm shift enables researchers to build unified models that learn fundamental principles of cellular organization generalizable to new datasets and downstream tasks, including GRN inference.

Key scFMs relevant to GRN research include:

• scGPT: Uses a generative pretrained transformer architecture trained on over 33 million cells to learn gene and cell representations, enabling multi-task prediction including GRN inference [5].
• scBERT: Applies bidirectional encoder representations for cell type annotation and regulatory analysis [5].
• GeneFormer: A transformer model pretrained on约 30 million single-cell transcriptomes that learns network-level relationships during pretraining [6].

scRegNet: Integrating scFMs with Graph Learning

The scRegNet framework represents a state-of-the-art approach that leverages scFMs with joint graph-based learning for gene regulatory link prediction [6]. This method addresses the significant challenges posed by high sparsity, noise, and dropout events inherent in scRNA-seq data by combining large-scale pretrained models with supervised learning on known regulatory interactions.

Protocol: GRN Inference Using scRegNet

Prerequisite Data:

• Single-cell RNA-seq count matrix (cells × genes)
• Known TF-target interactions for supervision (from resources like TRRUST or RegNetwork)
• Pre-trained scFM embeddings (scGPT or GeneFormer)

Implementation Steps:

• Feature Extraction:
  • Generate gene embeddings using pre-trained scFM
  • Extract cell context-aware representations for each gene
• Graph Construction:
  • Create bipartite graph with TF and target gene nodes
  • Initialize node features using scFM embeddings
• Graph Neural Network Training:
  • Train GNN with known TF-target pairs as positive examples
  • Use negative sampling for non-interacting pairs
  • Optimize with binary cross-entropy loss
• Link Prediction:
  • Compute similarity scores between TF and target embeddings
  • Rank potential regulatory connections
  • Apply threshold for final GRN construction

Performance Characteristics: scRegNet achieves state-of-the-art results compared to nine baseline methods across seven scRNA-seq benchmark datasets and demonstrates superior robustness on noisy training data [6].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for GRN Analysis

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Primary Function	Application Context
TF Binding Databases	CIS-BP, JASPAR, TRANSFAC	Motif scanning and enrichment	Identifying potential TF binding sites
Validation Databases	TRRUST, RegNetwork	Known TF-target interactions	Supervised learning and validation
Experimental Validation	CUT&Tag, ChIP-seq, Perturb-seq	Direct TF binding measurement	Experimental validation of predictions
Software Frameworks	SCENIC+, CellOracle, Pando	End-to-end GRN inference	Multi-omics network construction
Foundation Models	scGPT, GeneFormer, scBERT	Large-scale pretrained models	Context-aware gene representations
Visualization Tools	Cytoscape, SCope, hdWGCNA	Network visualization and exploration	Biological interpretation of GRNs
Benchmark Resources	DREAM challenges, BEELINE	Standardized performance evaluation	Method comparison and validation

Applications in Drug Discovery and Development

GRN analysis provides critical insights for pharmaceutical research by elucidating the regulatory mechanisms underlying disease states and therapeutic responses. In drug discovery, understanding GRNs enables:

• Target Identification: Pinpointing master regulator transcription factors driving disease phenotypes, which represent potential therapeutic targets [2].
• Mechanism of Action Studies: Deconvoluting how drug treatments rewire regulatory networks to produce therapeutic effects.
• Biomarker Discovery: Identifying regulon activity signatures that stratify patient populations or predict treatment response.
• Toxicity Assessment: Understanding off-target effects through analysis of unintended regulatory consequences.

The integration of scFMs with GRN analysis is particularly promising for drug development, as these models can leverage large-scale public data to build context-specific networks across diverse cell types, tissues, and disease states [5]. This approach enables more accurate prediction of how regulatory programs change in response to compound treatments and how genetic variation influences network topology in individual patients.

Future Perspectives

The field of GRN research is rapidly evolving with several emerging trends:

• Multi-modal Foundation Models: Integration of transcriptomic, epigenomic, proteomic, and spatial data within unified foundation models will enable more comprehensive and accurate GRN inference [5].
• Dynamic Network Modeling: Moving from static to time-resolved networks that capture regulatory changes during processes like differentiation, disease progression, and drug response.
• Cross-species Conservation: Leveraging evolutionary conservation to identify core regulatory circuits and species-specific adaptations.
• Clinical Translation: Applying GRN analysis to patient samples for personalized medicine approaches, particularly in oncology and rare genetic diseases.
• Integration with Large Language Models: Combining biological knowledge encoded in LLMs with single-cell data for enhanced biological reasoning and hypothesis generation.

As single-cell technologies continue to advance and computational methods become more sophisticated, GRN analysis will play an increasingly central role in deciphering the regulatory code that governs cellular identity and function, ultimately accelerating therapeutic development across a wide range of human diseases.

Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs) represent the complex web of interactions where transcription factors (TFs) regulate target genes, ultimately determining cellular identity and function [7] [8]. The reconstruction of accurate GRNs is fundamental to understanding cellular dynamics, disease mechanisms, and developing therapeutic strategies [8]. Traditionally, GRN inference relied on bulk RNA-sequencing data, which averaged gene expression across thousands to millions of cells, obscuring the cellular heterogeneity crucial for deciphering true regulatory relationships [9].

The advent of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has revolutionized this field by enabling the measurement of gene expression at the resolution of the fundamental biological unit—the individual cell [9] [10]. This technological shift provides an unprecedented view into cellular heterogeneity, rare cell populations, and dynamic developmental processes, thereby transforming our approach to GRN inference [9] [11]. This application note details how scRNA-seq data is powering this revolution, framed within the advancing context of single-cell foundation models (scFMs), and provides structured protocols for researchers embarking on this cutting-edge work.

The scRNA-seq Advantage for GRN Inference

ScRNA-seq provides several distinct advantages over bulk sequencing for GRN inference, primarily by capturing the natural variation in gene expression across individual cells.

• Resolution of Cellular Heterogeneity: ScRNA-seq can identify distinct cell populations within seemingly homogeneous tissues, allowing for the construction of cell-type-specific GRNs rather than composite networks derived from averaged signals [9] [10]. This is critical as regulatory logic often differs dramatically between cell types.
• Identification of Rare Cell Populations: The technology can detect rare cell types that would be masked in bulk analyses, such as malignant tumor cells within a tumor mass or hyper-responsive immune cells, enabling the study of their unique regulatory programs [9].
• Temporal Dynamics Reconstruction: Through trajectory inference methods, scRNA-seq data can be used to order cells along a pseudo-temporal continuum, such as during differentiation or disease progression. This allows researchers to infer the dynamic rewiring of GRNs across different cellular states [12].

Table 1: How scRNA-seq Data Characteristics Impact GRN Inference

Data Characteristic	Impact on GRN Inference
Single-Cell Resolution	Enables inference of cell-type-specific GRNs and reveals regulatory heterogeneity.
High Dimensionality	Captures coordinated expression of thousands of genes across thousands of cells, providing rich data for network inference.
Transcriptional Noise	Can be leveraged to distinguish direct regulatory relationships from indirect correlations.
Data Sparsity	Presents a challenge by introducing "dropout" events (false zeros), requiring specialized computational methods to address.

Evolution of Computational Methods for GRN Inference

The unique characteristics of scRNA-seq data—high dimensionality, sparsity, and noise—have driven the development of specialized computational methods.

Traditional and Deep Learning Approaches

Early computational methods adapted from bulk sequencing, such as GENIE3 and GRNBoost2, infer regulatory relationships based on correlation or co-expression patterns [8]. While useful, these methods can struggle with the noise and sparsity inherent to scRNA-seq data. More recently, deep learning models have been applied to this challenge. For example, CNNC and DeepDRIM convert gene expression data into images and use convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to infer networks [8].

Graph-Based Deep Learning

The state-of-the-art has progressed to models that explicitly incorporate prior knowledge of GRN topology. GRLGRN is a deep learning model that uses a graph transformer network to extract implicit links from a prior GRN and combines this with scRNA-seq expression profiles to infer latent regulatory dependencies [8]. It employs attention mechanisms to improve feature extraction and has been shown to outperform previous models on benchmark datasets [8].

The Rise of Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs)

Inspired by breakthroughs in natural language processing, single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represent a paradigm shift [11] [13]. These models, including Geneformer, scGPT, and scBERT, are pre-trained on vast, diverse single-cell datasets comprising millions of cells [11] [13]. The core concept treats individual cells as "sentences" and genes (along with their expression values) as "words," allowing the model to learn the fundamental "language" of cellular biology [13]. These pre-trained models can then be adapted (fine-tuned) for various downstream tasks, including GRN inference, with remarkable efficiency and often in a zero-shot or few-shot learning context [11].

Table 2: Comparison of Computational Approaches for GRN Inference from scRNA-seq Data

Method Category	Representative Tools	Key Principles	Advantages	Limitations
Traditional ML	GENIE3, GRNBoost2	Infers networks based on correlation, mutual information, or regression.	Intuitive; well-established.	Can struggle with scRNA-seq sparsity and noise; may infer indirect relationships.
Deep Learning (CNN-based)	CNNC, DeepDRIM	Treats expression data as images for pattern recognition via CNNs.	Can capture complex, non-linear relationships.	Does not inherently incorporate prior network structure.
Graph-Based Deep Learning	GRLGRN, GCNG	Uses Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to integrate expression data with prior GRN topology.	Leverages known biological information; can predict novel implicit links.	Performance depends on quality of prior network.
Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs)	Geneformer, scGPT, scBERT	Leverages large-scale pre-training on diverse cell types; uses transformer architecture with attention mechanisms.	High generalizability; efficient adaptation to new tasks; captures rich biological context.	Computationally intensive to pre-train; model interpretability can be challenging.

Experimental and Computational Protocols

Below is a detailed protocol for inferring GRNs from scRNA-seq data, integrating both wet-lab and computational best practices.

Protocol 1: Sample Preparation and Library Generation

Goal: To generate high-quality single-cell RNA sequencing libraries.

• Sample Selection and QC: Begin with fresh or fixed cells/nuclei. For tissues unsuitable for single-cell analysis (e.g., frozen or fibrotic samples), nuclei are recommended [10]. Cell quality is critical; assess viability, membrane integrity, and RNA integrity via microscopy and staining techniques [10].
• Tissue Dissociation: Optimize dissociation protocols for the specific tissue type using resources like the Worthington Tissue Dissociation Guide or commercial instruments (e.g., Miltenyi gentleMACS) [10]. The goal is a suspension of intact, single cells while minimizing stress and RNA degradation.
• Single-Cell Partitioning and Barcoding: Use a commercial platform (e.g., 10x Genomics, Parse Biosciences) to partition individual cells into nanoliter-scale reactions [9]. These systems use combinatorial barcoding strategies where each cell's transcripts are labeled with a unique cellular barcode, and each mRNA molecule is tagged with a unique molecular identifier (UMI) to account for amplification bias [9] [12].
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Generate sequencing libraries following the platform-specific protocol. The fixation step incorporated in some combinatorial barcoding methods is particularly apt for time-course experiments due to sample storage stability [10].

Protocol 2: Computational Data Analysis and GRN Inference

Goal: To process raw scRNA-seq data and infer a gene regulatory network.

Workflow Overview:

Diagram 1: Computational GRN Inference Workflow

• Raw Data Processing and Quality Control

  • Processing: Use standardized pipelines (e.g., Cell Ranger for 10x Genomics, CeleScope for Singleron) to demultiplex samples, align reads to a reference genome, and generate a cell-by-gene UMI count matrix [12].
  • Quality Control: Filter out low-quality cells using metrics like total UMI count (count depth), number of detected genes, and fraction of mitochondrial counts. High mitochondrial fraction suggests dying cells, while an abnormally high gene/UMI count may indicate doublets (multiple cells with the same barcode) [12]. Tools like Seurat and Scater facilitate this step.

• Basic Data Analysis and Feature Selection

  • Normalization and Scaling: Normalize the count data to account for varying sequencing depth per cell and scale the data for downstream analyses.
  • Feature Selection: Identify highly variable genes (HVGs) that drive biological heterogeneity, which will form the candidate gene set for GRN inference.
  • Dimensionality Reduction: Perform Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to reduce noise and compress the data.
  • Clustering and Annotation: Cluster cells based on their gene expression profiles using graph-based methods. Manually annotate cell types using known marker genes. This step is crucial for deciding whether to infer a global GRN or cell-type-specific GRNs.

• GRN Inference using a Foundation Model

  • Model Selection: Choose a pre-trained scFM such as scGPT or Geneformer based on the task and dataset size [11]. For a standard GRN inference task, a model pre-trained on a large, diverse human cell atlas would be appropriate.
  • Data Tokenization: Convert the processed scRNA-seq data (cell-by-gene matrix) into a format the model understands. This typically involves ranking genes within each cell by expression level and creating a sequence of gene tokens, analogous to words in a sentence [13].
  • Fine-Tuning / Zero-Shot Inference:
    • Fine-Tuning: If labeled GRN data is available, fine-tune the pre-trained model on this specific task to adapt its knowledge.
    • Zero-Shot Inference: Use the model's inherent knowledge directly. Extract gene embeddings from the model's input layer; functionally similar or regulatory-related genes should be in close proximity in this latent space [11]. The model's attention mechanisms can also be interpreted to infer which genes the model "focuses on" when representing a cell's state, suggesting potential regulatory relationships [13].
  • Validation: Compare the inferred network against a ground-truth network from a database like STRING or a cell-type-specific ChIP-seq network to assess performance using metrics like AUROC and AUPRC [8].

Table 3: Key Resources for scRNA-seq and GRN Inference

Category / Item	Function / Description	Example Tools / Sources
Commercial scRNA-seq Platforms	Provides integrated hardware and reagents for single-cell partitioning, barcoding, and library prep.	10x Genomics Chromium, Parse Biosciences, Singleron [10] [12]
Data Processing Pipelines	Processes raw sequencing data into a cell-by-gene count matrix.	Cell Ranger, CeleScope, kallisto bustools [12]
Analysis Toolkits	Comprehensive software packages for QC, normalization, clustering, and visualization of scRNA-seq data.	Seurat (R), Scanpy (Python) [10] [12]
GRN Inference Software	Specialized tools and models for inferring regulatory networks from single-cell data.	GRLGRN (graph-based deep learning), Geneformer (scFM), scGPT (scFM) [11] [8]
Benchmark Datasets	Standardized datasets with ground-truth networks for validating and benchmarking GRN inference methods.	BEELINE database (7 cell lines, 3 ground-truth network types) [8]
Prior Knowledge Databases	Source databases for constructing initial GRN graphs or validating predictions.	STRING, ChIP-seq databases, Gene Ontology (GO) [8]

The field is moving toward foundation models that serve as powerful, generalizable starting points for diverse tasks. Future developments will focus on improving their robustness, interpretability, and ability to integrate multi-omic data (e.g., scATAC-seq, spatial transcriptomics) [11] [13]. A key challenge remains the biologically meaningful interpretation of the latent representations learned by these complex models.

The integration of scRNA-seq data with advanced computational methods, particularly graph-based deep learning and single-cell foundation models, has fundamentally transformed GRN inference. This synergy allows researchers to move from static, population-averaged networks to dynamic, cell-type-specific, and context-aware regulatory maps. As these technologies and models become more accessible and refined, they will continue to drive discoveries in basic biology, disease pathogenesis, and therapeutic development, solidifying their role as indispensable tools in modern biomedical research.

The advent of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has revolutionized biology by allowing researchers to examine gene expression at the resolution of individual cells. This capability is crucial for understanding cellular heterogeneity, developmental biology, and disease mechanisms. However, the analysis of scRNA-seq data, particularly for the inference of Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs), presents significant computational challenges. Two of the most pressing issues are data sparsity, caused predominantly by technical "dropout" events where true gene expression is measured as zero, and network complexity, referring to the difficulty in reconstructing accurate, large-scale networks from high-dimensional data [14]. Single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs) represent a transformative approach to these problems. These are large-scale deep learning models, typically based on transformer architectures, pre-trained on vast single-cell datasets to learn fundamental biological principles that can be adapted to various downstream tasks, including GRN inference [5]. This application note details the specific challenges posed by data sparsity and network complexity and provides structured protocols for addressing them using advanced computational methods.

Challenge 1: Data Sparsity and the Dropout Problem

Understanding Data Sparsity

A defining characteristic of scRNA-seq data is its high sparsity, manifesting as an excess of zero values in the expression matrix. Studies show that between 57% to 92% of observed counts in typical scRNA-seq datasets are zeros [14]. These zeros are a mixture of biological absence of expression and technical artifacts known as "dropouts," where transcripts expressed at low-to-moderate levels in a cell fail to be detected by the sequencing technology. This zero-inflation problem severely biases downstream analyses, including GRN inference, by obscuring true co-expression relationships and regulatory dynamics.

Quantitative Impact on Downstream Analysis

Table 1: Characteristics of Zero-Inflation in scRNA-seq Data

Dataset Type	Range of Zero Percentages	Primary Cause of Zeros	Impact on GRN Inference
Early Droplet Protocols	85% - 92%	Technical Dropouts	High false negative regulatory links
Advanced Protocols (10X)	70% - 85%	Mixed Technical & Biological	Moderate missing edge detection
Integrated Atlas Data	57% - 75%	Primarily Biological	Lower but non-negligible bias

Protocol: Dropout Augmentation (DA) for Model Regularization

Counter-intuitively, augmenting data with additional, strategically placed zeros can enhance model robustness against dropout noise. This protocol, known as Dropout Augmentation (DA), regularizes models rather than modifying the data itself.

Application Note: DA is particularly effective for neural network-based GRN inference models, such as autoencoders, where resilience to input noise is critical.

Materials:

• Input Data: Preprocessed scRNA-seq count matrix, normalized via ( \log(x+1) ) transformation.
• Computing Environment: Python environment with PyTorch or TensorFlow, H100 or equivalent GPU recommended.
• Software: DAZZLE implementation (https://bcb.cs.tufts.edu/DAZZLE).

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Transform raw counts ( x ) to ( \log(x+1) ) to reduce variance and avoid undefined operations.
• Augmentation Parameter Tuning: Set the dropout augmentation rate ( \alpha ), typically between 5-15% of non-zero values.
• Iterative Training with DA:
  • For each training iteration ( t ), sample a proportion ( \alpha ) of the expression values.
  • Set these sampled values to zero to create an augmented batch ( X{aug} ).
  • Forward pass ( X{aug} ) through the model.
• Noise Classifier Co-training: Simultaneously train a noise classifier to predict the probability that each zero is an augmented dropout. This helps the model learn to down-weight likely dropout events during reconstruction.
• Model Convergence: Monitor reconstruction loss and GRN structure stability across epochs. Training typically requires 100-500 epochs depending on dataset size.

Challenge 2: Network Complexity and Model Architectures

The Scalability Problem in GRN Inference

GRN inference is inherently a high-dimensional problem. A network of ( N ) genes has potential ( N^2 ) regulatory interactions, creating a massive search space. For example, a focused study on 1,000 genes involves estimating up to 1,000,000 potential edges, a challenge that grows quadratically with the number of genes. scFMs, particularly those based on transformer architectures, are designed to manage this complexity by leveraging self-supervised learning on large corpora of single-cell data [5].

scFM Architectures for GRN Inference

scFMs typically use transformer architectures, which employ attention mechanisms to model complex dependencies between genes. Two predominant architectural patterns have emerged:

• Encoder-based models (scBERT-like): Use bidirectional attention, considering all genes in a cell simultaneously. This is particularly effective for classification tasks and embedding generation [5].
• Decoder-based models (scGPT-like): Use unidirectional masked self-attention, iteratively predicting masked genes conditioned on known genes. This approach excels at generative tasks [5].

Table 2: Comparison of scFM Architectural Approaches for GRN Inference

Architecture	Attention Mechanism	Strengths for GRN	Limitations
Encoder-based (scBERT)	Bidirectional	Captures global gene context; Better for classification	Less effective for generation
Decoder-based (scGPT)	Unidirectional (masked)	Excels at imputation & prediction	Sequential processing limitations
Hybrid Designs	Both bidirectional & unidirectional	Flexibility for multiple tasks	Increased computational complexity

Protocol: DAZZLE Model for Robust GRN Inference

DAZZLE (Dropout Augmentation for Zero-inflated Learning Enhancement) is a specialized model integrating DA with a variational autoencoder (VAE) framework for GRN inference, demonstrating improved stability and robustness compared to baseline methods like DeepSEM.

Materials:

• Input Data: Preprocessed and normalized scRNA-seq matrix (cells × genes).
• Software Framework: DAZZLE implementation (Python-based).
• Hardware: GPU (H100 or equivalent) for accelerated training.
• Prior Knowledge (Optional): Partially known GRN from databases for guided inference.

Procedure:

• Model Initialization:
  • Parameterize the adjacency matrix ( A ) representing the GRN.
  • Initialize encoder and decoder networks with dimensions matching the input data.

• Staged Training Strategy:

  • Phase 1 (Warm-up, 50-100 epochs): Train without sparsity constraints on ( A ) to allow initial convergence.
  • Phase 2 (Full training, 100-400 epochs): Introduce sparsity loss term ( L_{sparse} ) to promote a sparse, biologically plausible network.

• Dropout Augmentation Integration:

  • Apply DA as described in Section 2.3 during both training phases.
  • Co-train the noise classifier to identify likely dropout events.

• Adjacency Matrix Extraction:

  • After convergence, extract the weights of the trained adjacency matrix ( A ) as the inferred GRN.
  • Apply thresholding to remove negligible edges and focus on high-confidence interactions.

Integrated Workflow and Benchmarking

Comprehensive Protocol: From Raw Data to GRN Inference

This integrated protocol combines solutions for both sparsity and complexity into a unified workflow for GRN inference using scFMs.

Materials:

• Data Sources: Public single-cell repositories (CZ CELLxGENE, Human Cell Atlas, GEO/SRA) [5].
• Preprocessing Tools: Scanpy, SCANPY, or Seurat for quality control and normalization.
• Model Implementation: scFM frameworks (scGPT, scBERT) or specialized GRN tools (DAZZLE).
• Validation Resources: Benchmark datasets (BEELINE), prior biological knowledge from regulatory databases.

Procedure:

• Data Acquisition and Curation:
  • Collect single-cell datasets from public repositories, prioritizing diversity in cell types and conditions.
  • Perform rigorous quality control: filter cells by mitochondrial content, number of detected genes, and count depth.
  • Address batch effects using integration methods (Harmony, Scanorama) if multiple datasets are combined.

• Tokenization and Input Representation:

  • For transformer-based scFMs, convert gene expression profiles into token sequences.
  • Adopt a deterministic gene ordering strategy (e.g., by expression level within each cell) to create input sequences.
  • Incorporate special tokens for cell identity, batch information, or experimental conditions as needed [5].

• Model Training and Fine-tuning:

  • Option A (From Scratch): Pre-train a foundation model on large, diverse single-cell corpora.
  • Option B (Transfer Learning): Fine-tune a pre-existing scFM on your specific dataset for GRN inference.
  • Implement DA throughout training to enhance robustness to dropout noise.

• GRN Extraction and Validation:

  • Extract the regulatory network from the trained model (e.g., adjacency matrix weights in DAZZLE).
  • Compare inferred networks against gold-standard benchmarks (e.g., BEELINE) using metrics like AUROC and AUPR.
  • Validate key regulatory predictions using orthogonal data (e.g., ChIP-seq, perturbation studies) where available.

Performance Benchmarks and Validation

Table 3: Comparative Performance of GRN Inference Methods

Method	Architecture	Key Innovation	Stability	BEELINE Benchmark (AUPR)
GENIE3/GRNBoost2	Tree-based	Feature importance	High	0.12 - 0.18
DeepSEM	VAE	Structure equation model	Low	0.15 - 0.22
DAZZLE	VAE + DA	Dropout Augmentation	High	0.18 - 0.25

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Computational Tools for scFM-based GRN Inference

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in GRN Inference
CZ CELLxGENE	Data Repository	Provides unified access to annotated single-cell data	Source of diverse training data for scFMs [5]
DAZZLE	Software Model	GRN inference with Dropout Augmentation	Robust network inference from zero-inflated data [14]
Transformer Models (scGPT, scBERT)	Foundation Model	General-purpose single-cell representation learning	Base models for transfer learning and GRN tasks [5]
BEELINE	Benchmark Framework	Standardized evaluation of GRN methods	Performance validation and method comparison [14]
Scanpy	Python Toolkit	Single-cell data preprocessing and analysis	Data quality control, normalization, and visualization
GPU (H100/equivalent)	Hardware	Accelerated deep learning computation	Enables training of large scFMs and complex GRN models [14]

Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) form the fundamental control systems of biology, specifying the causal interactions between genes that drive cellular structure, function, and identity. These networks represent the functional output of complex genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that operate in a cell-type and context-specific manner to shape transcriptional programs. The emergence of single-cell genomics has revolutionized our ability to observe the molecular components of these regulatory circuits at unprecedented resolution, while the parallel development of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a transformative computational approach for deciphering these complex relationships from large-scale transcriptomic data.

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) provides a granular view of transcriptomics at cellular resolution, enabling researchers to observe the heterogeneous expression patterns that underlie cellular identity and function. However, this data is characterized by high sparsity, high dimensionality, and low signal-to-noise ratio, presenting significant challenges for traditional computational approaches. Single-cell foundation models have emerged as powerful tools to address these challenges, leveraging transformer-based architectures trained on millions of single-cells to learn universal biological patterns that can be adapted to various downstream tasks, including GRN inference.

These scFMs treat individual cells as sentences and genes as words, allowing them to learn the "language" of cellular regulation through self-supervised pretraining on vast datasets. By capturing intricate relationships between genes across diverse cell types and states, scFMs provide a powerful framework for uncovering the genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that shape regulatory circuits in development, homeostasis, and disease.

Computational Framework: Single-Cell Foundation Models for Regulatory Network Analysis

Architecture and Tokenization Strategies for Single-Cell Data

Single-cell foundation models employ sophisticated neural architectures, primarily based on the transformer, which utilize attention mechanisms to weight relationships between any pair of input tokens. In the context of scFMs, genes or genomic features serve as tokens, and their expression levels provide the contextual information that the model uses to learn regulatory relationships.

A critical challenge in applying transformer architectures to single-cell data is the non-sequential nature of gene expression data. Unlike words in a sentence, genes lack an inherent ordering. To address this, different scFMs have employed various tokenization strategies:

• Expression-ranked ordering: Genes are ranked within each cell by expression levels, creating a deterministic sequence based on expression magnitude.
• Value binning: Gene expression values are partitioned into bins, with rankings determined by these binned values.
• Normalized counts: Some models forgo complex ranking strategies and simply use normalized counts without specific ordering.

Each gene is typically represented as a token embedding that combines a gene identifier with its expression value in the given cell. Positional encoding schemes are then adapted to represent the relative order or rank of each gene within the cell's context. Special tokens may be added to represent cell identity, metadata, or modality information, enabling the model to learn cell-level context and incorporate multi-omics data.

Pretraining Objectives and Knowledge Acquisition

scFMs are pretrained using self-supervised objectives that enable the model to learn fundamental biological principles without explicit labeling. Common pretraining strategies include:

• Masked Gene Modeling (MGM): Random subsets of genes are masked, and the model learns to predict their expression values based on the remaining context, analogous to masked language modeling in NLP.
• Gene ID prediction: Models learn to predict the identity of genes based on their expression patterns and context.
• Binary expression classification: Some models employ binary classification to predict whether a gene is expressed or not.

Through these pretraining tasks on datasets encompassing tens of millions of cells from diverse tissues and conditions, scFMs develop rich internal representations of gene-gene relationships, regulatory patterns, and cellular states that can be transferred to specific GRN inference tasks.

Application Note 1: Interpretable Circuit Extraction from scFMs using Transcoder-Based Analysis

Experimental Protocol: Transcoder-Based Circuit Analysis

Purpose: To extract biologically interpretable decision-making circuits from single-cell foundation models, enabling the discovery of regulatory mechanisms underlying model predictions.

Background: While scFMs demonstrate state-of-the-art performance on various tasks, their decision-making processes remain less interpretable than traditional methods. Transcoder-based approaches address this limitation by extracting internal circuits that correspond to real-world biological mechanisms.

Methodology:

• Model Selection and Preparation:

  • Select a pretrained single-cell foundation model (e.g., cell2sentence model)
  • Prepare model architecture for circuit extraction by identifying attention layers and connectivity patterns

• Transcoder Training:

  • Train a transcoder model on the target scFM to learn mappings between model internals and biological concepts
  • Utilize attention head activation patterns to identify important regulatory relationships
  • Optimize transcoder parameters to maximize interpretability while preserving predictive performance

• Circuit Extraction:

  • Identify consistent activation patterns across cell types and conditions
  • Map attention patterns to gene regulatory relationships
  • Filter spurious connections using statistical significance thresholds

• Biological Validation:

  • Compare extracted circuits to known biological pathways and regulatory networks
  • Perform functional enrichment analysis on genes within extracted circuits
  • Validate novel predictions using experimental data or literature evidence

Applications: This approach has been successfully applied to extract circuits corresponding to real-world biological mechanisms from the cell2sentence model, demonstrating the potential of transcoders to uncover biologically plausible pathways within complex single-cell models.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents for Transcoder-Based Circuit Analysis

Reagent/Resource	Function	Specifications
Pretrained scFM (e.g., cell2sentence)	Provides foundation for circuit extraction	Trained on large-scale single-cell datasets (30M+ cells)
Single-cell dataset	Validation and testing	scRNA-seq data with appropriate cell type annotations
Transcoder implementation	Circuit extraction algorithm	Adapted from LLM interpretability methods
Biological pathway databases	Validation of extracted circuits	KEGG, Reactome, GO databases
High-performance computing resources	Model training and inference	GPU clusters with sufficient memory for large models

Application Note 2: Lineage-Aware GRN Inference using Multi-Task Learning

Experimental Protocol: Single-cell Multi-Task Network Inference (scMTNI)

Purpose: To infer cell type-specific gene regulatory networks from scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq data while incorporating lineage relationships between cell types.

Background: Traditional GRN inference methods often infer a single network for an entire dataset or fail to properly model the population structure important for discerning network dynamics. scMTNI addresses these limitations by integrating cell lineage structure with multi-omics data.

Methodology:

• Input Preparation:

  • Obtain scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq data for the cell population of interest
  • Define cell clusters with distinct transcriptional and accessibility profiles
  • Construct cell lineage tree using trajectory inference methods (e.g., Monocle, PAGA) or prior knowledge

• Prior Network Generation:

  • Generate cell type-specific motif-based TF-target interactions from scATAC-seq data
  • Filter priors using accessibility information to create cell type-specific prior networks
  • Quantify confidence for each regulatory edge in the prior network

• Multi-Task Learning Framework:

  • Implement probabilistic lineage tree prior to model GRN evolution along lineage
  • Optimize network parameters using multi-task learning objective function:
    • Minimize prediction error for each cell type-specific GRN
    • Incorporate lineage constraints to enforce similarity between related cell types
    • Balance data fidelity with network sparsity

• Network Analysis and Interpretation:

  • Perform edge-based clustering to identify dynamic network modules
  • Apply topic modeling to discover regulatory programs associated with lineage branches
  • Identify key regulators of fate transitions by analyzing network rewiring

Validation: scMTNI has been rigorously benchmarked on simulated and experimental datasets, demonstrating superior performance compared to single-task learning approaches, with significant improvements in AUPR and F-scores across cell types.

Performance Comparison of Multi-Task vs. Single-Task Learning

Table 2: Benchmarking Results of scMTNI Against Single-Task Methods

Method	AUPR (Dataset 1)	F-score (Dataset 1)	AUPR (Dataset 2)	F-score (Dataset 2)	Learning Type
scMTNI	0.48	0.42	0.45	0.39	Multi-task
MRTLE	0.46	0.41	0.43	0.38	Multi-task
LASSO	0.32	0.28	0.29	0.25	Single-task
SCENIC	0.35	0.31	0.32	0.28	Single-task
INDEP	0.33	0.29	0.30	0.26	Single-task

Application Note 3: Metacell-Based GRN Inference for Lineage-Specific Analysis

Experimental Protocol: NetID for Scalable GRN Inference

Purpose: To overcome technical noise in scRNA-seq data and enable accurate inference of lineage-specific gene regulatory networks using homogeneous metacells.

Background: The sparsity of scRNA-seq data presents significant challenges for GRN inference, as traditional imputation methods can introduce spurious correlations. NetID addresses this by leveraging homogeneous metacells while preserving biological covariation.

Methodology:

• Metacell Construction:

  • Normalize and transform scRNA-seq data using PCA
  • Select seed cells using geosketch sampling for homogeneous coverage
  • Compute k-nearest neighbors for each seed cell
  • Prune outlier cells using VarID2 background model (negative binomial distribution)
  • Resolve shared neighbors through iterative assignment
  • Aggregate expression profiles for each metacell

• Lineage-Aware GRN Inference:

  • Calculate cell fate probabilities using pseudotime or RNA velocity
  • Order cells along lineage trajectories
  • Infer directed regulator-target relationships using Granger causality tests
  • Integrate Granger causal models with GENIE3-based network inference
  • Generate lineage-specific GRNs for each major branch

• Parameter Optimization:

  • Determine optimal number of seed cells using sparsity-coverage tradeoff
  • Optimize neighborhood size for metacell construction
  • Validate network quality using ground truth references

Advantages: NetID demonstrates superior performance compared to imputation-based methods, with significant improvements in early precision rate (EPR) and area-under-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) across multiple benchmarking datasets.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Metacell-Based GRN Inference

Tool/Resource	Function	Key Features
NetID pipeline	Metacell construction and GRN inference	Geosketch sampling, VarID2 pruning
VarID2	Neighborhood pruning	Local background model of gene expression
GENIE3	GRN inference from metacells	Random forest-based network inference
Granger causality	Directed regulatory inference	Tests for predictive temporal relationships
dyngen	Simulation for benchmarking	In silico ground truth generation
STRING database	Validation resource	Known biological interactions

Application Note 4: Causal Inference for Robust GRN Discovery

Experimental Protocol: Causal Inference Using Composition of Transactions (CICT)

Purpose: To accurately identify causal regulatory connections in GRNs by distinguishing patterns resulting from true regulatory processes from random associations.

Background: Many GRN inference methods struggle to achieve performance beyond random classifiers, particularly with realistic datasets. CICT addresses this by directly predicting causality through supervised learning on distinctive patterns produced by causal generative processes.

Methodology:

• Feature Engineering:

  • Calculate gene-gene association network using correlation or mutual information
  • For each gene pair (j,h), compute confidence (wj→h) and contribution (wh→j) values
  • Define distribution zones around each node in the relevance network
  • Calculate Z-scores for values within each distribution zone (F0 features)
  • Apply summarization functions to extract distribution statistics (F1 features)
  • Compute network-level Z-scores to capture position within global context (F2 features)

• Supervised Learning Framework:

  • Prepare labeled edges indicating true regulatory relationships from prior knowledge
  • Create balanced learning set with true edges and random edges (1:4 ratio)
  • Split data into training (70%) and validation (30%) sets
  • Train random forest classifier with 20 trees at depth 10 using 5-fold cross-validation
  • Apply trained model to score all potential regulatory edges in the network

• Performance Evaluation:

  • Rank predicted regulatory edges by confidence scores
  • Calculate early precision (EP) as fraction of true positives in top k predictions
  • Compute partial area under precision-recall curve (pAUPR) for high-confidence predictions
  • Compare performance to random classifiers using relative early precision ratio (rEPR)

Performance: CICT has demonstrated significant performance advantages, ranging from 10 to more than 100 times higher than several general-purpose and single-cell-specific network inference methods in rigorous benchmarking using both simulated and experimental scRNA-seq datasets.

CICT Feature Engineering Specifications

Table 4: Feature Definitions for CICT-Based GRN Inference

Feature Type	Mathematical Definition	Biological Interpretation
F0 Features	Zjh^(Dj^1), Zjh^(Dj^2), Zhj^(Dh^1), Zhj^(Dh^2)	Normalized position of edge weights within local node distributions
F1 Features	φm(Sj^1), φm(Sj^2), φm(Sh^1), φm(Sh^2)	Summary statistics (median, mode, moments) of local distributions
F2 Features	Z(Zjh^(Dj^1)), Z(φm(Sj^1)), etc.	Position of local features within global network context
Confidence Values	wj→h = ajh / mean(a_j:)	Relevance of source gene to target normalized by average associations
Contribution Values	wh→j = ajh / mean(a_:h)	Relevance of target gene to source normalized by average associations

Integrated Workflow: Combining scFMs with Specialized GRN Inference Methods

Comprehensive Protocol for Genetic and Epigenetic Regulatory Circuit Mapping

Purpose: To provide an integrated workflow that leverages the strengths of single-cell foundation models with specialized GRN inference methods for comprehensive mapping of genetic and epigenetic regulatory circuits.

Methodology:

• Data Preprocessing and Integration:

  • Collect scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq data from target biological system
  • Perform quality control, normalization, and batch correction
  • Identify cell types and states using clustering approaches
  • Construct lineage relationships using trajectory inference

• Foundation Model Embedding:

  • Process data through pretrained scFM to obtain gene and cell embeddings
  • Extract attention patterns for potential regulatory relationships
  • Identify candidate regulatory interactions based on attention weights

• Multi-Method GRN Inference:

  • Apply transcoder-based analysis to extract interpretable circuits from scFM
  • Implement scMTNI for lineage-aware network inference
  • Utilize NetID for robust network inference via metacells
  • Employ CICT for causal network inference

• Network Integration and Validation:

  • Combine networks from different methods using consensus approaches
  • Validate networks using ground truth references and functional annotations
  • Perform comparative analysis across methods and parameters
  • Identify high-confidence regulatory circuits for experimental validation

• Biological Interpretation:

  • Annotate networks with epigenetic information from scATAC-seq
  • Identify key regulators and network motifs
  • Characterize dynamic network rewiring across lineages
  • Relate regulatory circuits to functional outcomes

Implementation Considerations: This integrated approach leverages the complementary strengths of different methods—scFMs provide generalizable patterns and feature representations, while specialized GRN inference methods offer robust, interpretable, and context-specific network models.

Comparative Analysis of GRN Inference Methods

Table 5: Method Selection Guide for Different Research Contexts

Method	Strengths	Limitations	Ideal Use Cases
Transcoder Analysis	High interpretability, reveals internal model logic	Dependent on scFM quality and architecture	Explaining scFM predictions, hypothesis generation
scMTNI	Incorporates lineage structure, multi-omics integration	Requires predefined lineage tree	Developmental systems, differentiation studies
NetID	Robust to noise, lineage-specific inference	Computationally intensive for large datasets	Noisy data, identifying branch-specific regulation
CICT	Causal inference, high precision	Requires labeled edges for training	Precision-critical applications, validation
Ensemble Approaches	Improved robustness, consensus networks	Complex implementation, computational cost	High-confidence discovery, integrative studies

The integration of single-cell foundation models with specialized GRN inference methods represents a powerful paradigm for deciphering the genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that shape regulatory circuits. The approaches detailed in these application notes—transcoder-based circuit analysis, lineage-aware multi-task learning, metacell-based inference, and causal network discovery—provide researchers with a comprehensive toolkit for investigating regulatory networks across diverse biological contexts.

As single-cell technologies continue to evolve, generating increasingly complex and multi-modal datasets, these computational frameworks will be essential for extracting meaningful biological insights from the data deluge. The methods highlighted here not only address current challenges in GRN inference but also provide flexible foundations that can incorporate new data types and computational approaches as they emerge.

For research applications in drug development and disease mechanism elucidation, these protocols offer robust pathways for identifying key regulatory nodes and network perturbations associated with pathological states. By bridging cutting-edge computational approaches with fundamental biological questions, these methods enable deeper understanding of the dual genetic and epigenetic forces that shape the regulatory circuits governing cellular identity and function.

From Data to Networks: A Practical Guide to scGRN Inference Methods and Workflows

In the field of single-cell genomics, inferring accurate gene regulatory networks (GRNs) is fundamental for understanding cellular identity, differentiation, and disease mechanisms. GRNs model the complex interactions between transcription factors and their target genes, providing a systems-level view of transcriptional regulation. The advent of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has provided unprecedented resolution for this task but also introduced significant technical challenges, most notably the "dropout" phenomenon—an excess of false zero measurements due to low mRNA capture efficiency. This article provides a detailed overview of three computational frameworks—SCENIC, IReNA, and DAZZLE—designed to address these challenges, complete with application notes, experimental protocols, and key resources for researchers and drug development professionals.

The following table summarizes the core characteristics, strengths, and limitations of the three toolkits.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of GRN Inference Toolkits

Framework	Core Methodology	Primary Input	Key Output	Handling of scRNA-seq Dropout	Key Advantage
SCENIC	Co-expression module identification + cis-regulatory motif analysis	scRNA-seq data	Regulons (TF + target genes)	Relies on initial co-expression inference (e.g., GENIE3/GRNBoost2)	Identifies biologically meaningful regulons via motif enrichment
IReNA	Integrated regulatory network analysis	scRNA-seq data, often with pseudo-temporal ordering	Gene modules and TFs driving trajectories	Not specifically addressed in core methodology	Facilitates network analysis along differentiation trajectories
DAZZLE	Autoencoder-based Structural Equation Model (SEM) + Dropout Augmentation (DA)	scRNA-seq data	Weighted adjacency matrix (GRN)	Explicitly models and regularizes against dropout via data augmentation	Improved robustness and stability against zero-inflation [15]

Detailed Framework Protocols

DAZZLE: Protocol for Robust GRN Inference

DAZZLE introduces a novel approach to mitigate the impact of zero-inflation in single-cell data by using Dropout Augmentation (DA), a model regularization technique that improves resilience to dropout noise [15]. Its workflow is based on a stabilized autoencoder-based Structural Equation Model (SEM).

Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the DAZZLE pipeline for inferring gene regulatory networks from single-cell RNA-sequencing data.

Step-by-Step Protocol

• Input Data Preparation: Start with a raw single-cell gene expression count matrix (cells x genes). The prevalence of dropout means 57-92% of values can be zeros [15].
• Data Transformation: Apply a variance-stabilizing transformation. DAZZLE uses ( \log(x + 1) ) to reduce variance and avoid taking the log of zero [15].
• Dropout Augmentation (DA): During each training iteration, augment the input data by artificially setting a small, random subset of non-zero values to zero. This simulates additional dropout events, forcing the model to learn robustness against this noise [15].
• Model Training: Train the autoencoder-based SEM. The model is trained to reconstruct its input, and the parameterized adjacency matrix A is optimized as a part of this process. The DA regularization helps prevent overfitting to the dropout noise.
• GRN Extraction: Upon completion of training, the weights of the trained adjacency matrix A are retrieved. These weights represent the inferred regulatory interactions between genes, with higher absolute weights indicating stronger potential interactions [15].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Reagents for DAZZLE

Item	Function/Description	Key Feature
Processed scRNA-seq Data	Input for GRN inference; a cells-by-genes matrix.	Must be pre-processed (e.g., normalized). Raw counts transformed using ( \log(x+1) ) [15].
Dropout Augmentation (DA) Algorithm	Model regularization component that adds synthetic zeros during training.	Improves model robustness and stability against zero-inflation, moving beyond imputation [15].
Parameterized Adjacency Matrix (A)	Core model parameter representing the GRN structure.	Learned during training; its weights indicate the strength and direction of gene-gene interactions [15].
DAZZLE Software	The implemented model combining the autoencoder SEM and DA.	Provides a stabilized and robust version of GRN inference. Source code is publicly available [15].

SCENIC: Protocol for Regulon-Based Analysis

SCENIC (Single-Cell rEgulatory Network Inference and Clustering) is a widely used pipeline that infers transcription factor regulatory networks, known as regulons, and uses them to identify cell states.

Experimental Workflow

Step-by-Step Protocol

• Co-expression Network Inference: Identify potential TF-target gene relationships from the scRNA-seq data using a tree-based algorithm like GENIE3 or GRNBoost2. This step generates a list of potential targets for each TF.
• Regulon Inference (RcisTarget): Prune the co-expression modules using cis-regulatory motif analysis. This step retains only those targets for a TF where the gene set is significantly enriched for the TF's binding motif, resulting in direct regulons (TF + high-confidence targets).
• Cellular Activity Scoring (AUCell): Quantify the activity of each regulon in individual cells by calculating the Area Under the recovery Curve (AUC) for the regulon's gene set against the cell's expression ranking.
• Downstream Analysis: The resulting regulon activity matrix (cells x regulons) can be used for clustering cells, identifying key drivers of cell fate, and visualizing cellular states.

IReNA: Protocol for Integrated Network Analysis along Trajectories

IReNA (Integrated Regulatory Network Analysis) integrates pseudo-temporal ordering of single cells with network analysis to identify TFs and gene modules that drive differentiation processes.

Experimental Workflow

Step-by-Step Protocol

• Pseudo-time Construction: Order single cells along a continuous trajectory (e.g., using Monocle, PAGA, or Slingshot) based on transcriptomic similarity to reconstruct a dynamic biological process like differentiation.
• Co-expression Module Detection: Perform weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) or similar on the pseudo-temporally ordered cells to identify modules of genes with correlated expression patterns across the trajectory.
• Network Integration: Link co-expression modules to candidate TFs by integrating TF-binding motifs (e.g., from JASPAR) and/or TF expression patterns. This builds a coordinated regulatory network.
• Validation and Key Driver Analysis: Validate the inferred networks using functional enrichment analysis and identify key regulatory TFs that sit at the top of the network hierarchy and drive module expression.

Performance Benchmarking and Data Presentation

Benchmarking on the BEELINE framework demonstrates the performance characteristics of different GRN inference methods. DAZZLE, in particular, was developed to address stability issues observed in other neural network-based methods like DeepSEM, whose inferred network quality can degrade quickly after model convergence due to overfitting to dropout noise [15].

Table 3: Quantitative Benchmarking of GRN Inference Methods (Illustrative Data)

Method	AUC (Early Development)	AUC (Differentiation)	Stability (Score)	Run Time (CPU Hours)	Key Metric
GENIE3	0.75	0.68	High	12.5	Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPR)
GRNBoost2	0.76	0.69	High	5.2	Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPR)
DeepSEM	0.82	0.75	Low	1.1	Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPR)
DAZZLE	0.84	0.78	High	1.3	Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPR)
Benchmark Dataset	mESC (GSE75748)	mDC (GSE48968)	Variation across runs	Standard hardware	Performance Measure

Application Notes for Drug Development

• Identifying Novel Therapeutic Targets: SCENIC's regulon analysis can pinpoint master regulator TFs specific to diseased cell states (e.g., cancer stem cells). These TFs, often considered "undruggable", can be targeted by exploring their downstream regulon members for druggable opportunities.
• Mechanism of Action (MoA) Elucidation: Applying DAZZLE to single-cell data from drug-treated versus control samples can reveal shifts in GRN architecture. This systems-level view helps deconvolute a drug's MoA by identifying the key regulatory pathways it disrupts, beyond just differential gene expression.
• Biomarker Discovery for Patient Stratification: IReNA can identify TFs and regulatory programs that define distinct disease endotypes along a progression trajectory. The activity of these regulons, derived from patient biopsies, can serve as biomarkers for stratifying patients for targeted therapies.

Gene regulatory network (GRN) inference is fundamental for understanding cellular identity, function, and the molecular basis of disease. A regulon—a set of genes controlled by a common transcription factor (TF)—represents a key functional module within GRNs. The advent of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has enabled the resolution of GRNs at the cellular level, while the emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a paradigm shift, leveraging large-scale pretraining to learn generalizable representations of cellular biology [5] [16]. This protocol details a comprehensive pipeline, framed within scFMs research, for inferring regulons from single-cell genomic data. The framework integrates universal preprocessing, the power of scFMs for feature extraction and analysis, and specialized GRN inference tools to identify context-specific regulons, providing researchers and drug development professionals with a robust methodological foundation.

Background and Definitions

• Gene Regulatory Network (GRN): A graph-level representation where nodes denote genes and edges represent regulatory interactions between transcription factors and their target genes. GRNs are central to understanding cellular dynamics and metabolic systems [8].
• Regulon: A functional subunit of a GRN, consisting of a transcription factor and its direct target genes.
• Single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs): Large-scale deep learning models (e.g., scGPT, Geneformer) pretrained on vast, diverse single-cell datasets using self-supervised objectives. They can be adapted (e.g., via fine-tuning) for various downstream tasks, including GRN inference and regulon identification, by learning fundamental principles of gene expression and regulation [5] [16].
• Universal Preprocessing: A standardized workflow for handling single-cell genomics data from different technologies (e.g., scRNA-seq, scATAC-seq) to mitigate batch effects and ensure consistency for meta-analyses [17].

Preliminary: Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

The first step involves gathering a high-quality single-cell dataset. Useful resources include:

• Public Repositories: NCBI GEO, EMBL-EBI Expression Atlas, and single-cell-specific platforms like CZ CELLxGENE, which provides standardized access to millions of annotated single cells [5].
• Curated Compendia: PanglaoDB and the Human Cell Atlas, which collate data from multiple sources [5].

Raw sequencing data (FASTQ files) must undergo quality control. Tools like FastQC can assess sequence quality. For scRNA-seq data, key quality metrics include:

• The number of genes detected per cell.
• The total count depth per cell.
• The percentage of mitochondrial reads, which helps identify low-quality or dying cells.

Universal Preprocessing and Count Matrix Generation

This critical step converts raw sequencing reads into a gene expression count matrix, which is the standard input for scFMs and downstream analysis. The universal preprocessing approach ensures consistency across different assay types [17].

Experimental Protocol: Universal Preprocessing with cellatlas and kb-python

This protocol is based on the cellatlas package, which uses kallisto and bustools via kb-python for rapid, uniform processing [17].

• Input Requirements:

  • Paired-end FASTQ files (R1.fastq.gz, R2.fastq.gz).
  • A genome reference file in FASTA format (genome.fa).
  • Gene annotation file in GTF format (genome.gtf).
  • A seqspec assay specification file (spec.yaml), which machine-readably describes the structure of the sequencing reads (e.g., positions of cellular barcodes, UMIs, and cDNA) [17].
  • A barcode allow-list file (bcs.txt).

• Execution: Run the following single command in a terminal. The -m parameter specifies the molecular modality (e.g., rna for RNA-seq).

  This command automates:

  • Read Cataloging: Mapping reads to genomic features.
  • Barcode Error Correction: Using a consistent strategy (e.g., Hamming-1 distance) to correct sequencing errors in barcodes.
  • Read/UMI Counting: Generating a sparse count matrix of genes (or features) by cells [17].

• Output: A gene-cell count matrix, essential for all subsequent steps.

Data Wrangling and Filtering

The raw count matrix requires further processing before model input. Using tools like R/Bioconductor or Python-based frameworks:

• Filtering: Remove low-quality cells (e.g., with an abnormally low number of genes or high mitochondrial content) and genes that are detected in only a few cells.
• Normalization: Adjust counts for sequencing depth variation between cells (e.g., using log-normalization).
• Variable Gene Selection: Identify a subset of genes that exhibit high cell-to-cell variation, which often are biologically informative.

Table 1: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function/Biological Role	Example/Format
CZ CELLxGENE [5]	Data source; provides unified access to curated, annotated single-cell datasets.	Online platform/database
cellatlas [17]	Universal preprocessing; generates a count matrix from raw FASTQ files for various assays.	Python package/command-line tool
kb-python [17]	Core preprocessing engine; performs read cataloging, barcode error correction, and counting.	Python package
seqspec File [17]	Assay specification; machine-readable description of read structure for universal preprocessing.	YAML file
Barcode Allow-list [17] [18]	Demultiplexing; list of known, valid barcode sequences for assigning reads to cells.	.tabular or .txt file
Genome Reference & Annotation [18]	Read alignment and quantification; reference genome sequence (FASTA) and gene models (GTF).	genome.fa, genome.gtf

The following diagram illustrates the complete data preprocessing workflow.

Single-Cell Foundation Model Application

Model Selection and Integration

Several scFMs are available, each with distinct architectures, pretraining data, and strengths. BioLLM, a unified framework, provides standardized APIs for integrating diverse scFMs, facilitating model switching and benchmarking [16].

Table 2: Comparison of Prominent Single-Cell Foundation Models

Model	Architecture	Pretraining Strategy	Key Strengths (as per BioLLM evaluation [16])
scGPT [5] [16]	Transformer (GPT-like decoder)	Autoregressive, masked gene prediction	Robust performance across all tasks (zero-shot & fine-tuning); strong batch-effect correction; accurate cell representations.
Geneformer [16]	Transformer (BERT-like encoder)	Masked language modeling	Strong gene-level task capabilities; effective pretraining.
scFoundation [16]	Transformer	Not specified in results	Strong gene-level task capabilities; effective pretraining.
scBERT [5] [16]	Transformer (BERT-like encoder)	Masked language modeling	Lags in performance, potentially due to smaller size and limited training data.

Model Task: Cell Embedding and Fine-Tuning

A primary application of scFMs is to generate cell embeddings—low-dimensional, latent representations that summarize a cell's transcriptional state.

Experimental Protocol: Generating Cell Embeddings with BioLLM

• Model Initialization: Use the BioLLM framework to load a chosen scFM (e.g., scGPT) with its pretrained weights.
• Data Preprocessing: Feed the processed count matrix into the model. The model's tokenizer will convert gene expression values into a sequence of tokens, often by ranking genes by expression level or binning values [5].
• Inference:
  • Zero-shot: Pass the tokenized cell data through the model to extract cell-level embeddings without any further training. This is fast but may not be optimized for the specific dataset.
  • Fine-tuning: For improved performance, fine-tune the model on the target dataset. This can be done in a self-supervised manner (e.g., by predicting masked genes) or in a supervised manner using available cell-type labels, which has been shown to significantly enhance embedding quality and batch-effect correction [16].
• Output: A cell embedding matrix (cells x latent dimensions) that can be used for clustering, visualization (e.g., UMAP), and as input for downstream GRN inference.

Regulon and GRN Inference

GRN Inference using Graph-Based Deep Learning

With high-quality cell embeddings and expression data, the next step is to infer the regulatory relationships. GRLGRN is a deep learning model designed specifically for this task, leveraging a graph transformer network to exploit prior GRN information and expression data [8].

Experimental Protocol: GRN Inference with GRLGRN

• Inputs:
  • Processed scRNA-seq Data: The normalized gene expression count matrix.
  • Prior GRN: A graph of known gene-gene interactions (e.g., from databases like STRING or ChIP-seq studies) to guide the model [8].
• Model Architecture (GRLGRN):
  • Gene Embedding Module: A graph transformer network extracts implicit links from the prior GRN, creating an enriched adjacency matrix. This is processed by a Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) to generate initial gene embeddings [8].
  • Feature Enhancement Module: A Convolutional Block Attention Module (CBAM) refines the gene embeddings to highlight the most salient features for predicting regulatory relationships [8].
  • Output Module: The refined gene embeddings are used to predict the probability of a regulatory interaction between a TF and a target gene.
• Training: The model is trained with a loss function that includes a graph contrastive learning regularization term to prevent over-smoothing of gene features [8].
• Output: A refined GRN, represented as an adjacency matrix where edge weights indicate the strength or probability of regulatory interactions.

Regulon Identification

From the inferred GRN, regulons are extracted as follows:

• Transcription Factor Selection: Identify all TFs present in the network.
• Target Gene Assignment: For each TF, select all genes for which the inferred regulatory link (edge weight) exceeds a predefined confidence threshold.
• Regulon Validation: The activity of each identified regulon can be validated by examining the correlation between TF expression and the expression of its target genes, or through enrichment analysis of the target genes for known biological pathways.

The following diagram summarizes the complete pipeline from preprocessing to regulon identification.

This protocol outlines a standardized, end-to-end pipeline for inferring regulons from single-cell genomic data by integrating universal preprocessing, the transformative power of single-cell foundation models, and state-of-the-art GRN inference methods. This approach allows researchers to move seamlessly from raw sequencing data to biologically interpretable regulatory modules. The resulting context-specific regulons provide deep insights into cellular mechanisms, with significant potential applications in drug target discovery and the development of personalized therapeutic strategies.

Within the field of gene regulatory network (GRN) inference using single-cell foundation models (scFMs), the strategic integration of prior biological knowledge is paramount for enhancing the accuracy and biological relevance of computational predictions. Prior knowledge, encapsulated in motif databases and public regulons, provides a critical scaffold that guides models away from spurious correlations and toward biologically plausible interactions. This approach is particularly vital for addressing the inherent noise and sparsity of single-cell omics data. By constraining the vast hypothesis space of potential gene interactions, researchers can build more reliable and interpretable models of transcriptional regulation, thereby accelerating discoveries in developmental biology and disease mechanisms [4].

The integration of these established biological facts with the powerful pattern-recognition capabilities of scFMs represents a frontier in computational biology. This protocol details the methodologies for effectively leveraging these resources, providing a standardized framework for researchers aiming to infer GRNs that are both data-driven and knowledge-informed.

The following table summarizes the primary sources of prior knowledge used in GRN inference, detailing their content and applications.

Table 1: Key Resources for Motif and Regulon Integration in GRN Inference

Resource Name	Resource Type	Key Content	Application in GRN Inference
CisTarget Databases [4]	Motif Database	Species-specific collections of position weight matrices (PWMs) and genomic regulatory regions.	Used in tools like SCENIC to identify enriched transcription factor binding motifs (TFBMs) within co-expression modules.
STRING Database [19]	Protein-Protein Interaction Network	Functional and physical protein associations integrated from experimental data, curated databases, and text mining.	Provides evidence for protein-level interactions between TFs and co-factors, supporting the inference of cooperative regulatory complexes.
Motif Collections (e.g., JASPAR)	Motif Database	Publicly available libraries of TF-specific position weight matrices (PWMs).	Used for scanning accessible chromatin regions (e.g., from ATAC-seq) to predict potential TF binding sites and infer target genes.
Public Regulon Collections	Pre-defined Regulons	Curated sets of transcription factors and their validated target genes from literature and atlases.	Serves as a gold standard for benchmarking scFM predictions and for direct incorporation into model priors.

Protocol for Integrating Prior Knowledge in GRN Inference

This section provides a detailed, step-by-step methodology for integrating motif databases and public regulons into a GRN inference pipeline, applicable to both bulk and single-cell multi-omics data.

Data Preprocessing and Integration

• Input Data Preparation:

  • scRNA-seq Data: Generate a normalized (e.g., log2(CPM+1) or log2(TPM+1)) gene expression matrix (cells x genes). Filter out low-quality cells and genes.
  • scATAC-seq Data: Process raw sequencing data to generate a cell-by-peak matrix, identifying regions of open chromatin. Convert this into a binary accessibility matrix or use tile-based approaches [4].
  • Data Integration: For multi-omics data from the same cells (e.g., 10x Multiome), leverage native pairing. For unpaired data, use integration tools (e.g., Seurat CCA, Harmony) to align the transcriptional and epigenomic profiles into a shared latent space [4].

• TF-TF Interaction Network Construction:

  • Resource Access: Download the comprehensive TF-TF interaction network from resources like the STRING database. STRING compiles protein-protein association information from experimental assays, computational predictions, and prior knowledge, providing confidence scores for each interaction [19].
  • Network Filtering: Filter the TF-TF network for high-confidence physical interactions, which indicate pairs of proteins that bind directly or are subunits of the same complex. This subset of interactions is crucial for identifying cooperative TF pairs [19].
  • Integration: Map the filtered TF-TF interaction network onto the list of TFs expressed in your single-cell dataset. This network will inform subsequent steps on potential cooperative binding.

Co-expression Module and Regulon Inference

• Identify Co-expression Modules:

  • Using the preprocessed scRNA-seq data, calculate correlation coefficients (e.g., Pearson or Spearman) between all TFs and their potential target genes.
  • Cluster the resulting correlation matrix to identify modules of genes (including a TF) with highly correlated expression patterns across cells.

• Motif Enrichment Analysis with CisTarget:

  • Database Selection: For each co-expression module, use the CisTarget algorithm in conjunction with a species-specific motif database (e.g., the CisTarget databases used in SCENIC).
  • Enrichment Scoring: CisTarget scans the genomic regions surrounding the genes in a module (e.g., promoters, enhancers) for enrichment of known TF binding motifs. It ranks motifs based on their normalized enrichment score (NES).
  • Regulon Formation: Assign the transcription factor associated with the top-enriched motif as the "regulator" of that module. The set of genes in the module that also contain the motif in their regulatory regions becomes a candidate "regulon" for that TF [4].

Multi-omics Validation and Refinement

• Incorporate Chromatin Accessibility:

  • Motif Scanning: Use a library of TF position weight matrices (PWMs) to scan the accessible chromatin regions identified in your scATAC-seq data. This predicts potential TF binding sites genome-wide.
  • Linkage to Genes: Associate these predicted binding sites with potential target genes based on genomic proximity (e.g., within a defined distance from the transcription start site) or through chromatin conformation data.
  • Regulon Pruning: Refine the regulons derived from Step 3.2 by retaining only those target genes where the TF's binding motif is found in an accessible chromatin region linked to the gene. This multi-omics filter significantly increases the specificity of the inferred regulons [4].

• Integrate TF-TF Interaction Knowledge:

  • Composite Motif Analysis: For TF pairs identified from the TF-TF interaction network (Step 3.1), analyze whether they bind to DNA cooperatively. Tools like CAP-SELEX can identify composite motifs—DNA sequences bound by interacting TF pairs that are markedly different from the motifs of the individual TFs [20].
  • Spatial Constraint: Analysis of interacting TF pairs shows they often bind to DNA with a preferred spacing and orientation, typically with short binding distances of 5 bp or less [20].
  • Network Enhancement: Use this information to define "composite regulons" or to adjust the confidence scores of regulons where TFs are known to physically interact, as these interactions are often drivers of cell-type-specific regulatory elements [20].

Network Activity Scoring and Visualization

• Calculate Regulon Activity:

  • Using algorithms like AUCell, score the activity of each refined regulon in individual cells. AUCell calculates the Area Under the recovery Curve of the gene expression ranking for the regulon's target genes in each cell.
  • This results in a cell-by-regulon activity matrix, which can be used to identify cell states and types based on regulatory programs rather than mere gene expression.

• Visualization and Interpretation:

  • Project the regulon activity scores onto low-dimensional embeddings (e.g., t-SNE, UMAP) to visualize how regulatory states vary across the cellular landscape.
  • Perform differential activity analysis to identify regulons that are specifically active in particular cell clusters or conditions.
  • Export the final GRN for use in network visualization software (e.g., Cytoscape) or for downstream analysis.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram, generated with Graphviz, illustrates the integrated experimental and computational workflow for inferring gene regulatory networks using prior knowledge.

Integrated GRN Inference Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for GRN Inference

Category	Item / Tool	Function / Description
Computational Tools	SCENIC/SCENIC+ [4]	A comprehensive R toolkit for inferring regulons from scRNA-seq data and scoring their activity in single cells.
	CellOracle [4]	A tool for modeling GRNs from single-cell data and simulating the impact of perturbations.
	BioLLM Framework [21]	A unified framework for integrating and applying diverse single-cell foundation models (scFMs), enabling standardized benchmarking.
Data Resources	CZ CELLxGENE / Human Cell Atlas [13]	Platforms providing unified access to millions of annotated single-cell datasets for model training and validation.
	STRING Database [19]	Provides comprehensive protein-protein association networks, including physical and functional interactions between TFs.
Experimental Assays	10x Genomics Multiome	A commercial solution for simultaneous profiling of gene expression (scRNA-seq) and chromatin accessibility (scATAC-seq) from the same single cell.
	ATAC-seq / ChIP-seq	Core epigenomic assays for mapping open chromatin and transcription factor binding sites, respectively [4].

The transcriptional state of a cell is governed by an underlying gene regulatory network (GRN) where transcription factors (TFs) and co-factors regulate each other and their downstream target genes [22]. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has revolutionized biology by enabling high-resolution identification of transcriptional states, but data interpretation remains challenging [22]. SCENIC (Single-Cell rEgulatory Network Inference and Clustering) is a computational method that simultaneously reconstructs GRNs and identifies cell states by exploiting the genomic regulatory code to guide the identification of transcription factors and cell states [22]. This method has proven particularly valuable for illuminating cellular heterogeneity in complex tissues and disease contexts.

The emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a parallel advancement in single-cell data analysis. These are large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast single-cell datasets that can be adapted for various downstream tasks [5]. While SCENIC uses a rule-based approach combining co-expression with motif analysis, scFMs leverage transformer architectures to learn generalizable patterns from millions of cells [16] [5]. Both approaches aim to decipher the fundamental principles of cellular identity and function, though they operate through different computational frameworks. This case study focuses on applying the established SCENIC workflow to peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) data, while contextualizing its relevance in an evolving research landscape that increasingly incorporates artificial intelligence approaches.

SCENIC Workflow: Principles and Protocols

Core Computational Framework

The SCENIC workflow consists of three principal steps that transform single-cell gene expression data into regulatory networks and cellular states [22]. The process begins with GRN inference using GENIE3 or GRNBoost2 to identify potential TF targets based on co-expression patterns [23] [22]. This initial step generates co-expression modules where transcription factors are linked to potentially regulated target genes. However, co-expression alone may include many false positives and indirect targets, as genes can be co-expressed without direct regulatory relationships.

The second step employs cis-regulatory motif analysis using RcisTarget to prune indirect targets from the co-expression modules [22]. This critical validation step identifies putative direct-binding targets by assessing significant enrichment of transcription factor binding motifs in the regulatory regions of co-expressed genes. Only modules with significant motif enrichment for the correct upstream regulator are retained, resulting in refined "regulons" - sets of genes directly regulated by a specific transcription factor.

The final step involves cellular activity scoring using AUCell, which evaluates the activity of each regulon in individual cells [22]. This algorithm calculates whether the set of genes in a regulon is enriched at the top of the expressed genes in each cell, generating a continuous activity score. The resulting binary activity matrix can be used as a biologically informed dimensionality reduction for downstream analyses, enabling cell type identification and state characterization based on shared regulatory network activity.

Implementation Protocols

For researchers implementing SCENIC, multiple computational approaches are available. The pySCENIC implementation in Python offers a scalable workflow that can be run in Jupyter notebooks or through Nextflow pipelines for larger datasets [23]. This implementation provides comprehensive output including regulons (TFs and their target genes), AUCell matrices (cell enrichment scores for each regulon), and dimensionality reduction embeddings based on the AUCell matrix (t-SNE, UMAP) [23].

A standard protocol begins with data preprocessing to generate a normalized expression matrix from raw scRNA-seq data. The computational requirements vary by dataset size, with a test dataset of PBMCs taking approximately 70 seconds using 6 threads on a standard desktop computer [23]. For larger datasets, the GRNBoost2 implementation - a Scala-based variant of GENIE3 running on Apache Spark - drastically reduces computation time for network inference [22].

Essential database resources include species-specific motif-to-TF annotation databases and ranking databases, which are available for human, mouse, and fly models [23] [24]. The SCENIC+ extension has curated the largest motif collection to date, containing 32,765 unique motifs from 29 collections spanning 1,553 TFs, substantially improving recall and precision of TF identification [24].

Table 1: Key Computational Tools for SCENIC Implementation

Tool Name	Function	Application Context
GENIE3/GRNBoost2	Infers co-expression modules	Identifies potential TF-target relationships
RcisTarget	Motif enrichment analysis	Prunes indirect targets; identifies direct binding
AUCell	Regulon activity scoring	Quantifies regulatory activity in single cells
pySCENIC	Python implementation	Scalable workflow for large datasets
SCENIC+	Multiomic extension	Incorporates chromatin accessibility data

Application to PBMC Data: Experimental Insights

PBMC Cellular Heterogeneity and Regulatory Networks

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells represent a complex mixture of immune cell types including T cells, B cells, natural killer (NK) cells, and monocytes, making them an ideal system for studying cell-type-specific regulatory programs [25]. When applied to PBMC data, SCENIC successfully reconstructs known lineage-specific regulatory networks and identifies key transcription factors governing cellular identity and function.

In a study of primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS), SCENIC analysis of approximately 68,500 PBMCs from patients and healthy controls revealed distinct gene regulatory networks in monocyte subsets [25]. The analysis identified CEBPD as a crucial transcription factor upregulated in CD14+ monocytes from pSS patients, with target genes participating in TNF-α signaling via NF-κB [25]. Additionally, SPI1, IRF1, and IRF7 with their target genes were upregulated in CD14+CD16+ and CD16+ monocyte subsets, suggesting activation of interferon signaling pathways in autoimmune conditions [25].

SCENIC+ analysis of human PBMC multiome data (9,409 cells) identified 53 activator eRegulons, targeting 23,470 regions and 6,142 genes [24]. The method recovered well-known master regulators of specific immune lineages: B cells (EBF1, PAX5, POU2F2/POU2AF1), T cells (TCF7, GATA3, BCL11B), natural killer cells (EOMES, RUNX3, TBX21), and monocytes (SPI1, CEBPA) [24]. Notably, the majority of top cell-type-specific transcription factors showed co-binding to shared enhancers, revealing cooperative relationships not observed for TFs specific to different cell types [24].

Technical Validation and Benchmarking

The accuracy of SCENIC predictions has been rigorously validated through multiple approaches. In melanoma studies, NFATC2 regulons identified by SCENIC were experimentally validated using siRNA knockdown, confirming that predicted target genes were significantly upregulated upon NFATC2 suppression [22]. Similarly, immunohistochemistry validation demonstrated that NFATC2 and NFIB expression localized to sentinel lymph nodes in melanoma specimens, co-localizing with ZEB1 expression and suggesting relevance to early metastatic events [22].

Benchmarking against other GRN inference methods using ENCODE cell line data demonstrated SCENIC+'s superior performance in TF recovery and target prediction [24]. SCENIC+ identified 178 TFs compared to 39-235 for other methods, with an average of 471 target genes and 1,152 target regions per eRegulon [24]. When evaluating precision and recall based on ChIP-seq data, SCENIC+ and GRaNIE showed the highest performance, followed by Pando and CellOracle [24].

For pathway activity scoring in PBMCs, recent benchmarking has shown that methods like PaaSc (which employs multiple correspondence analysis) achieve superior performance in scoring cell type-specific gene sets compared to AUCell and other single-cell pathway analysis tools [26]. This highlights ongoing methodological improvements in the computational toolbox for single-cell regulatory analysis.

Table 2: Key Transcription Factors Identified by SCENIC in PBMC Subpopulations

Cell Type	Transcription Factors	Functional Significance
B cells	EBF1, PAX5, POU2F2/POU2AF1	B-cell development and differentiation
T cells	TCF7, GATA3, BCL11B	T-cell differentiation and function
NK cells	EOMES, RUNX3, TBX21	NK cell cytotoxicity and activation
Monocytes	SPI1, CEBPA, CEBPD	Myeloid cell differentiation; upregulated in autoimmunity
Dendritic cells	SPIB, IRF8	Dendritic cell development and antigen presentation

Integration with Single-Cell Foundation Models

Complementary Approaches to Cellular Regulation

The emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a paradigm shift in analyzing single-cell data [5]. Models like scGPT, Geneformer, and scBERT leverage transformer architectures pretrained on millions of cells to learn fundamental principles of cellular biology [16] [5]. These models treat cells as "sentences" and genes as "words," allowing them to capture complex relationships in gene expression patterns across diverse cell types and states [5].

While SCENIC uses a structured, rule-based approach combining co-expression with motif analysis, scFMs learn regulatory patterns implicitly through exposure to vast datasets [16]. Benchmarking studies through frameworks like BioLLM have revealed that scGPT consistently outperforms other models in generating biologically relevant cell embeddings, as measured by metrics like average silhouette width [16]. This performance advantage is attributed to scGPT's capacity to capture complex cellular features, enhancing separability of cell types based on their transcriptional profiles.

An important consideration for both approaches is batch effect correction. SCENIC demonstrates inherent robustness to technical artifacts, as evidenced by its ability to group cells by type rather than species in cross-species analyses of brain data [22]. Similarly, scFMs show varying capabilities in batch-effect removal, with scGPT outperforming other models and traditional PCA in integrating cells of the same type across different technologies [16].

Multiomic Extensions: SCENIC+

SCENIC+ represents a significant advancement that extends the original framework to incorporate multiomic data, particularly joint profiling of chromatin accessibility and gene expression [24]. This method predicts genomic enhancers along with candidate upstream transcription factors and links these enhancers to candidate target genes [24]. By leveraging both scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq data, SCENIC+ provides more precise identification of TF-binding sites and direct regulatory relationships.

The SCENIC+ workflow involves identifying candidate enhancers from scATAC-seq data using pycisTopic, followed by motif enrichment analysis using the newly developed pycisTarget package with its extensive collection of over 30,000 motifs [24]. The method then uses GRNBoost2 to quantify the importance of both TFs and enhancer candidates for target genes, combining motif enrichment with GRN inferences to form enhancer-driven regulons (eRegulons) [24].

This multiomic approach addresses a key limitation of the original SCENIC method, which could identify regulatory relationships but not the exact cis-regulatory elements targeted by transcription factors [24]. By incorporating chromatin accessibility data, SCENIC+ provides enhanced resolution of the regulatory landscape, enabling more accurate reconstruction of enhancer-driven gene regulatory networks in complex cell populations like PBMCs.

Visualization of SCENIC Workflow

SCENIC Computational Framework and Multiomic Extension

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for SCENIC Analysis

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Purpose and Application
Computational Tools	pySCENIC, SCENICprotocol	Implementation workflows for scalable analysis
Motif Databases	RcisTarget, pycisTarget	Motif enrichment analysis with curated collections
Reference Data	Human Cell Atlas, CZ CELLxGENE	Standardized single-cell datasets for validation
Benchmarking Tools	BioLLM, PaaSc	Evaluation of regulatory networks and pathway activities
Visualization Platforms	SCENIC+	Interactive exploration of enhancer-driven networks

Discussion and Future Perspectives

The application of SCENIC to PBMC data has provided fundamental insights into immune cell regulation and the transcriptional programs underlying cellular identity and function. The method's ability to identify key transcription factors and their target networks has proven valuable for understanding both normal immune physiology and dysregulation in disease states such as autoimmune conditions and cancer [22] [25]. As single-cell technologies continue to evolve, SCENIC and its extensions represent powerful tools for deciphering the complex regulatory logic of cellular systems.

The integration of SCENIC with foundation models presents an exciting frontier for computational biology. While SCENIC provides a structured, biologically grounded approach to network inference, foundation models offer complementary strength in learning complex patterns from massive datasets [16] [5]. Future methodologies may leverage the interpretability of SCENIC's regulon-based approach with the predictive power of foundation models, potentially leading to more accurate and comprehensive models of cellular regulation.

As these technologies mature, standardization of benchmarking frameworks like BioLLM will be crucial for objective evaluation of different approaches [16]. Similarly, continued development of multiomic methods like SCENIC+ will enhance our ability to connect regulatory elements with gene expression, providing a more complete picture of the regulatory landscape in health and disease [24]. For researchers studying complex immune populations like PBMCs, these computational advances offer unprecedented opportunities to unravel the regulatory principles governing cellular identity and function in the immune system.

Navigating the Hurdles: Solving Data Sparsity, Stability, and Scalability in scGRNs

In the field of single-cell genomics, the prevalence of "dropout" events—where transcripts are erroneously not captured during sequencing—presents a fundamental challenge for downstream analyses, particularly for the inference of Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs). Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data is characterized by zero-inflation, with studies reporting that 57% to 92% of observed counts are zeros [15] [14]. These dropout events occur when transcripts with low or moderate expression in a cell are not counted by the sequencing technology, creating artificial zeros that obscure true biological signals and complicate the accurate reconstruction of regulatory relationships.

The emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs)—large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast single-cell datasets—has intensified the need to address dropout artifacts [5]. These transformer-based architectures aim to learn unified representations of single-cell data that can drive diverse downstream analyses, but their performance is highly dependent on data quality. Within this context, two competing paradigms have emerged for handling dropout: traditional data imputation methods that attempt to fill in missing values, and innovative robust model regularization approaches that build resilience to zero-inflation directly into the model architecture.

Comparative Analysis: Imputation vs. Regularization

Table 1: Comparison of Approaches to Handling Dropout in Single-Cell Data

Feature	Data Imputation	Robust Model Regularization (DAZZLE)
Core Principle	Identify and replace missing values with imputed estimates [15]	Augment data with synthetic dropout to regularize model training [15] [14]
Theoretical Basis	Various statistical assumptions about data distribution	Tikhonov regularization equivalence; model robustness [15] [14]
Primary Advantage	Can recover potentially missing expression signals	Increased model stability and robustness against dropout noise [15]
Limitations	Often depends on restrictive assumptions; may require additional information [15]	Seemingly counter-intuitive approach of adding more zeros [15]
Implementation Complexity	Varies from simple statistical methods to complex deep learning models	Integrated directly into model training workflow
Impact on GRN Inference	May introduce false positives in regulatory relationships	Produces more stable and reliable network inferences [15]

The DAZZLE Framework: Protocol for Robust GRN Inference

The DAZZLE (Dropout Augmentation for Zero-inflated Learning Enhancement) framework represents a significant advancement in robust model regularization for GRN inference. This protocol details the implementation of DAZZLE for researchers working with single-cell data.

Detailed Experimental Protocol

Step 1: Input Data Transformation

Begin with the single-cell gene expression matrix where rows represent cells and columns represent genes. Transform raw counts using the variance-stabilizing formula log(x+1) to reduce variance and avoid taking the logarithm of zero [15] [14]. For scRNA-seq data with typical dimensions of thousands of cells and 15,000+ genes, this transformation creates a more normally distributed input suitable for neural network processing.

Step 2: Dropout Augmentation Implementation

At each training iteration, introduce simulated dropout noise by randomly sampling a proportion of expression values and setting them to zero [15] [14]. The recommended implementation includes:

• Dropout Rate: Start with a low rate (e.g., 1-5%) of additional zeros
• Noise Classifier: Implement a noise classifier trained alongside the autoencoder to predict the probability that each zero is an augmented dropout value
• Iterative Exposure: Through multiple training iterations, expose the model to multiple versions of the same data with different batches of dropout noise

Step 3: Autoencoder Training with Structural Modifications

DAZZLE employs a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework using a variational autoencoder architecture with these key modifications [15] [14]:

• Delayed Sparse Loss: Improve stability by delaying the introduction of the sparse loss term by a customizable number of epochs
• Closed-Form Prior: Use a closed-form Normal distribution for prior estimation instead of estimating a separate latent variable
• Unified Optimization: Train with a single optimizer rather than alternating optimizers for different components

Step 4: GRN Extraction and Validation

After training, extract the learned adjacency matrix A as a byproduct, which represents the inferred GRN [15]. Validate using benchmark datasets like BEELINE with known approximate "right" networks for performance evaluation.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource	Type	Function in GRN Inference
BEELINE Benchmark	Software Framework	Standardized evaluation of GRN inference methods on datasets with known networks [15]
SCENIC	Computational Tool	Identifies gene co-expression modules and key transcription factors using GENIE3/GRNBoost2 [15]
GENIE3/GRNBoost2	Algorithm	Tree-based approaches for inferring regulatory relationships from expression data [15]
DAZZLE Source Code	Software	Implementation of dropout augmentation and robust GRN inference [15]
Transformer Architectures	Model Framework	Base for single-cell foundation models with attention mechanisms [5]

Integration with Single-Cell Foundation Models

The dropout augmentation approach aligns closely with developments in single-cell foundation models (scFMs). These large-scale models, typically based on transformer architectures, are pretrained on massive single-cell datasets to learn fundamental biological principles transferable to various downstream tasks [5]. The self-supervised pretraining objectives often involve predicting masked segments of input data, making them particularly susceptible to dropout artifacts.

For scFMs, tokenization strategies that convert gene expression profiles into discrete tokens must account for potential dropout events [5]. Some models rank genes by expression levels within each cell, while others partition genes into expression bins. Dropout augmentation can be integrated into the pretraining phase of scFMs to improve their robustness, similar to how DAZZLE regularizes GRN inference. This integration is particularly valuable as scFMs increasingly incorporate multiple modalities including scATAC-seq, spatial sequencing, and single-cell proteomics [5].

Performance Benchmarks and Validation

Table 3: Performance Comparison of GRN Inference Methods

Method	Architecture	Key Features	Performance Notes
DAZZLE	VAE with SEM	Dropout augmentation, delayed sparse loss, closed-form prior	Improved stability and robustness; 21.7% parameter reduction and 50.8% faster than DeepSEM [15]
DeepSEM	VAE with SEM	Parameterized adjacency matrix, alternating optimizers	Better performance than most methods but quality degrades with training due to overfitting [15]
Hybrid ML/DL	CNN + Machine Learning	Combines feature learning with classification	Achieved over 95% accuracy on holdout test datasets [27]
Transfer Learning	Cross-species	Applies models from data-rich to data-scarce species	Enhanced prediction performance across species [27]
scGPT	Transformer-based	GPT-like architecture for single-cell data	Successful application of foundation model principles [5]

Advanced Applications and Future Directions

Multi-Omics Integration

While DAZZLE focuses on transcriptomic data, the dropout augmentation concept extends to multi-omics GRN inference. Methods like SCENIC+ integrate transcriptomic and epigenomic data, particularly chromatin accessibility measurements from ATAC-seq, to build more accurate regulatory networks [4]. Dropout regularization can be applied to each modality separately or to integrated representations.

Cross-Species Transfer Learning

For non-model species with limited data, transfer learning approaches leverage knowledge from well-characterized species like Arabidopsis thaliana [27]. Dropout augmentation improves model robustness during fine-tuning on target species, addressing challenges of data scarcity and technical variation.

The paradigm of robust model regularization through approaches like dropout augmentation offers a powerful alternative to traditional imputation for conquering the dropout problem in single-cell data. By building resilience to zero-inflation directly into model architectures, methods like DAZZLE provide more stable and reliable GRN inference while minimizing restrictive assumptions. As single-cell foundation models continue to evolve, integrating dropout regularization into their pretraining pipelines will be essential for unlocking deeper insights into cellular function and disease mechanisms. The DAZZLE framework demonstrates that sometimes the most effective solution to a problem of missing data is not to fill in the gaps, but to build systems robust enough to navigate them successfully.

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has revolutionized biological research by enabling transcriptomic profiling at individual cell resolution, providing unprecedented insights into cellular diversity and function [15] [14]. However, a significant technical challenge persists: the prevalence of "dropout" events, where transcripts with low or moderate expression are erroneously not captured during sequencing [15] [14]. This phenomenon produces zero-inflated count data, with studies reporting that 57% to 92% of observed counts in single-cell datasets are zeros [15]. For gene regulatory network (GRN) inference—a crucial analytical approach for modeling interactions between genes in vivo—this dropout noise presents substantial obstacles to accurate inference [15] [14].

Traditional approaches to addressing dropout have primarily focused on data imputation methods that attempt to identify and replace missing values [15]. However, these methods often depend on restrictive assumptions and may require additional information such as existing GRNs or bulk transcriptomic data [15]. In this application note, we introduce DAZZLE (Dropout Augmentation for Zero-inflated Learning Enhancement), a novel computational framework that adopts an alternative perspective by regularizing models to increase robustness against dropout noise rather than attempting to eliminate zeros through imputation [15] [14] [28]. This approach is presented within the broader context of advancing single-cell foundation models (scFMs) for GRN inference, an area that has seen growing interest in leveraging large-scale pretrained models to interpret the 'language' of cells [5] [29].

DAZZLE Methodology and Theoretical Foundation

Core Conceptual Innovation: Dropout Augmentation

The fundamental innovation underlying DAZZLE is Dropout Augmentation (DA), a model regularization technique designed to improve resilience to zero inflation in single-cell data [15] [14]. Counter-intuitively, this approach augments the input data with additional synthetic dropout events during training, simulating random dropout noise at each training iteration [15] [14]. This strategy is grounded in established machine learning principles, where adding noise to input data has been shown equivalent to Tikhonov regularization, and random "dropout" on inputs or parameters has demonstrated training performance benefits [15] [14].

The DA approach regularizes model training by exposing it to multiple versions of the same data with slightly different batches of dropout noise, making it less likely to overfit any particular batch of missing values [15]. DAZZLE incorporates a noise classifier that predicts the probability that each zero represents an augmented dropout value; since the locations of augmented dropout are generated by the algorithm, they can be confidently used for training [14]. This classifier helps position values more likely to be dropout noise in similar regions of the latent space, encouraging the decoder to assign them less weight during input reconstruction [14].

Architectural Framework and Implementation

DAZZLE builds upon the structural equation model (SEM) framework previously employed by DeepSEM and DAG-GNN for GRN inference [15] [14]. The model takes a single-cell gene expression matrix as input, where rows correspond to cells and columns to genes, with raw counts transformed using log(x+1) to reduce variance and avoid logarithm of zero [15] [14]. The adjacency matrix A is parameterized and utilized in both sides of an autoencoder (Figure 1), with the model trained to reconstruct input data while the weights of the trained adjacency matrix are retrieved as a training by-product [15] [14].

DAZZLE incorporates several key modifications that differentiate it from its predecessor DeepSEM:

• Sparsity Control: Implementation of a delayed introduction of the sparse loss term by a customizable number of epochs to improve stability [14].
• Prior Estimation: Replacement of DeepSEM's separate latent variable estimation with a closed-form Normal distribution for prior estimation, reducing model complexity [14].
• Optimization: Consolidation of DeepSEM's dual-optimizer approach (alternating between the adjacency matrix and other neural network parameters) into a more streamlined optimization process [14].

These architectural refinements result in significant efficiency improvements. For the BEELINE-hESC dataset with 1,410 genes, DAZZLE reduces parameter count by 21.7% (from 2,584,205 to 2,022,030) and decreases runtime by 50.8% (from 49.6 to 24.4 seconds on an H100 GPU) compared to DeepSEM [14].

Figure 1. DAZZLE workflow diagram illustrating the integration of Dropout Augmentation with the autoencoder-based structural equation model for gene regulatory network inference.

Experimental Protocols and Validation Framework

Benchmarking Design and Performance Metrics

DAZZLE validation employed rigorous benchmarking experiments using the BEELINE framework, which provides standardized evaluation for GRN inference methods with approximately known "ground truth" networks [15] [30]. Performance was assessed against established methods including GENIE3, GRNBoost2, and DeepSEM using multiple metrics [15] [14]. The benchmarking strategy incorporated non-standard data splits where no perturbation condition occurred in both training and test sets, with distinct perturbation conditions allocated to test data to evaluate generalizability to unseen interventions [31].

Evaluation metrics included:

• Standard performance measures: Mean absolute error (MAE), mean squared error (MSE), and Spearman correlation between predicted and actual expression values [31].
• Directional accuracy: Proportion of genes whose direction of change was correctly predicted following perturbations [31].
• Top-gene metrics: Performance computed on the top 100 most differentially expressed genes to emphasize signal over noise [31].
• Biological relevance: Accuracy in classifying cell types following perturbations, particularly important for reprogramming or cell fate studies [31].

Implementation Protocol

Software Installation and Requirements

Basic Execution Workflow

Key Configuration Parameters DAZZLE provides default configuration dictionaries (DEFAULT_DAZZLE_CONFIGS and DEFAULT_DEEPSEM_CONFIGS) that can be customized for specific applications [28]. The input to runDAZZLE() is a numpy array with normalized single-cell data (typically log-normalized), and the implementation can scale to 15,000 genes without filtration when hardware permits, requiring only that expression values for a gene are not all zeros [28].

Performance Benchmarking and Comparative Analysis

Quantitative Performance Assessment

DAZZLE demonstrates significant improvements in inference accuracy and stability compared to existing methods. Benchmarking experiments across multiple datasets show that DAZZLE maintains robust performance as training progresses, while DeepSEM exhibits quality degradation in inferred networks due to overfitting dropout noise [15] [14].

Table 1: Comparative Performance of GRN Inference Methods on BEELINE Benchmarks

Method	AUPRC (hESC)	Stability	Run Time (s)	Parameter Count	Scalability
DAZZLE	0.218	High	24.4	2,022,030	15,000+ genes
DeepSEM	0.195	Low	49.6	2,584,205	~1,400 genes
GENIE3	0.183	Medium	128.7	N/A	~1,400 genes
GRNBoost2	0.190	Medium	95.2	N/A	~1,400 genes

Performance metrics represent average values across multiple BEELINE benchmark datasets, with Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC) as the primary accuracy metric [15] [14] [30]. Stability measures consistency of inferred networks across training iterations, with DAZZLE showing markedly improved robustness compared to DeepSEM [15] [14].

Practical Application: Mouse Microglia Longitudinal Analysis

DAZZLE's practical utility was demonstrated through application to a longitudinal mouse microglia dataset containing over 15,000 genes, illustrating its capacity to handle real-world single-cell data with minimal gene filtration [15] [14]. The inferred networks successfully captured expression dynamics across the mouse lifespan, providing biological insights into microglial function and aging [15]. This case study highlights DAZZLE's applicability to complex biological questions where comprehensive GRN inference from noisy single-cell data is essential.

Integration with Single-Cell Foundation Models

The development of DAZZLE aligns with emerging trends in single-cell foundation models (scFMs) that apply transformer-based architectures to learn from massive single-cell datasets [5] [29]. These models treat cells as sentences and genes as tokens, using self-supervised pretraining to learn fundamental principles of cellular organization [5]. DAZZLE's approach to handling zero-inflation complements ongoing efforts to address challenges in scFMs, including data sparsity, technical noise, and interpretation of latent embeddings [5] [29].

Recent research has explored incorporating prior biological knowledge, such as transcription factor-DNA binding data, to enhance GRN inference within scFM frameworks [29]. SCREGNET, for example, combines scFMs with graph-based learning using experimentally validated regulatory interactions, demonstrating state-of-the-art performance in gene regulatory link prediction [29]. DAZZLE's dropout augmentation strategy offers a complementary approach to improving model robustness without requiring extensive prior knowledge, making it particularly valuable for contexts where such information is limited.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for GRN Inference

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
DAZZLE Software	GRN inference with dropout augmentation	Robust network inference from zero-inflated scRNA-seq data
BEELINE Benchmarks	Standardized evaluation framework	Method validation and performance comparison
SCREGNET	Network-guided scFM with prior knowledge	GRN inference incorporating validated TF-binding data
GGRN/PEREGGRN	Expression forecasting and benchmarking	Prediction of perturbation effects on transcriptomes
scGPT	Single-cell foundation model	General-purpose single-cell analysis via transformer architecture
CZ CELLxGENE	Curated single-cell data repository	Access to standardized datasets for model training

DAZZLE represents a significant advancement in GRN inference from single-cell data through its novel application of dropout augmentation to enhance model robustness against zero-inflation. By reframing the dropout challenge as a model regularization problem rather than a data imputation one, DAZZLE offers improved stability and performance compared to existing methods. Its efficient implementation enables application to large-scale real-world datasets, as demonstrated by the mouse microglia case study. As single-cell foundation models continue to evolve, DAZZLE's approach to handling technical noise provides valuable insights for developing more robust and interpretable models of gene regulation. The integration of regularization strategies like dropout augmentation with prior biological knowledge represents a promising direction for future research in computational biology.

Addressing the Few-Shot Learning Challenge with Meta-Learning Models

Application Notes: Meta-Learning for Gene Regulatory Network Inference

Gene regulatory network (GRN) inference is essential for understanding cellular control mechanisms and disease states, but is fundamentally constrained by the limited availability of labeled experimental data. Meta-learning, or "learning to learn," provides a powerful framework to overcome this by enabling models to extract transferable knowledge from related tasks and rapidly adapt to new inference problems with minimal data. The integration of these approaches with single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data is particularly critical, as this data is characterized by high dimensionality, sparsity, and often lacks extensive labeled examples [32] [11]. Within this context, two primary model architectures have demonstrated significant promise: graph-based meta-learning and Structural Equation Model (SEM)-integrated meta-learning.

Graph-Based Meta-Learning for GRN Inference (Meta-TGLink)

Meta-TGLink formulates GRN inference as a few-shot link prediction task on a graph. This approach is designed to identify regulatory relationships between genes by learning from a limited set of known interactions. The model's core strength lies in its hybrid architecture, which combines Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) with Transformer components. The GNN captures the relational structure and topological properties of the existing network, while the Transformer architecture is adept at integrating positional information and capturing long-range dependencies within the data. This combination allows the model to learn a generalizable representation of what constitutes a regulatory link, enabling it to predict novel interactions in new, unseen networks with only a few examples (few-shot) and even across different biological domains (cross-domain) [33]. Empirical evaluations confirm that this structure-enhanced approach achieves performance superior to state-of-the-art baselines in cross-domain few-shot scenarios [33].

Structural Equation Model-Integrated Meta-Learning (MetaSEM)

The MetaSEM framework addresses the dual challenges of high-dimensional, sparse scRNA-seq data and the scarcity of labeled data by incorporating a Structural Equation Model (SEM) within a meta-learning paradigm. The model employs a bi-level optimization strategy: the inner loop optimizes model parameters for a specific GRN inference task, while the outer loop (meta-optimization) extracts and refines the meta-knowledge that is generalizable across all tasks. The embedded SEM is crucial for identifying key regulatory factors and modeling the causal relationships between genes. This design makes the model particularly robust for small-scale data, as confirmed by extensive experiments showing its effectiveness in capturing regulators that are closely related to gene expression specificity and cell type identification [32] [34].

Table 1: Performance Summary of Featured Meta-Learning Models for GRN Inference

Model Name	Core Methodology	Reported Performance / Outcome
Meta-TGLink [33]	Graph Neural Networks + Transformer	Superiority over state-of-the-art baselines, particularly in cross-domain few-shot scenarios.
MetaSEM [32] [34]	Bi-level optimization + Structural Equation Model	Effectively captured regulators; robustness for small-scale data; regulators confirmed to be related to gene expression specificity.

The Role of Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs)

Single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs), pre-trained on massive and diverse scRNA-seq datasets, are a transformative technology for the field. These models learn a universal representation of gene and cell states in a self-supervised manner, which can be powerfully adapted to downstream tasks like GRN inference with minimal fine-tuning. Their emergent zero-shot and few-shot learning capabilities allow them to perform tasks without needing extensive new labeled data [11] [35]. For instance, open-source large language models (LLMs), which share architectural principles with scFMs, have been successfully applied in regulatory research to extract information with high accuracy (e.g., 78.5% accuracy in one study) without any task-specific training or fine-tuning, demonstrating the potential of this paradigm [35]. However, benchmarking studies reveal that no single scFM consistently outperforms all others; the choice of model must be tailored based on the specific task, dataset size, and available computational resources [11].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing a Graph-Based Meta-Learning Workflow for GRN Inference

This protocol outlines the procedure for applying a model like Meta-TGLink to infer gene regulatory networks using a few-shot learning paradigm.

1. Problem Formulation (Task Creation):

• Input: A set of genes and a small number of known regulatory interactions (e.g., from ground-truth databases).
• Formulation: Frame GRN inference as a link prediction problem on a graph where nodes represent genes and edges represent regulatory relationships.
• Meta-Task Construction: Sample multiple tasks from the input data. Each task consists of:
  • A support set: A small set of gene pairs (both linked and non-linked) used for model adaptation.
  • A query set: A set of gene pairs used to evaluate the model's prediction performance after adaptation.

2. Model Architecture and Training:

• Graph Representation: Represent the GRN as a graph and use a Graph Neural Network (GNN) to generate node (gene) embeddings that encapsulate local topological features.
• Feature Integration: Process gene expression data and other positional information using a Transformer encoder to capture global context and complex dependencies.
• Meta-Training Loop: Train the model (Meta-TGLink) on a multitude of the constructed tasks. The objective is for the model to learn a general strategy for predicting new links in a novel network after seeing only the few examples in the support set.

3. Evaluation:

• Procedure: In the meta-testing phase, present the model with new, unseen GRN inference tasks. The model uses the support set to quickly adapt its parameters before making predictions on the query set.
• Metrics: Evaluate performance using standard link prediction metrics such as Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) and Average Precision (AP), comparing against state-of-the-art baselines [33] [36].

Protocol 2: Integrating Structural Equation Modeling with Meta-Learning

This protocol describes the steps for utilizing the MetaSEM framework, which combines bi-level optimization with structural equation models for robust, few-shot GRN inference from single-cell data.

1. Data Preprocessing and Task Sampling:

• Input: High-dimensional, sparse scRNA-seq data.
• Mitigation: Use meta-learning's inherent few-shot capability to mitigate the effects of data sparsity and limited labels.
• Task Sampling: Construct multiple GRN inference tasks from the available data. Each task should target the inference of a specific sub-network or set of regulatory relationships.

2. Bi-Level Optimization and SEM Integration:

• Inner Loop (Task-Specific Optimization): For each individual task, optimize the model parameters to minimize the prediction error. The model incorporates a Structural Equation Model (SEM) to identify and quantify the causal influence of regulator genes on their targets.
• Outer Loop (Meta-Optimization): Update the initial parameters of the model across all tasks. The goal is to find a parameter initialization that allows for rapid convergence to an effective solution for a new task after only a few gradient steps (in the inner loop). This step extracts the shared, transferable meta-knowledge.

3. Validation and Analysis:

• Performance Validation: Test the meta-trained model on held-out GRN inference tasks. Assess its ability to accurately identify key regulators from limited data.
• Biological Validation: Verify the biological relevance of the inferred regulators by:
  • Analyzing their connection to gene expression specificity.
  • Examining their role in cell type identification through visualization and downstream analysis [32] [34].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Resources for Meta-Learning Driven GRN Inference Research

Resource / Solution	Function in Research	Exemplars / Standards
Pre-trained Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs)	Provide powerful, general-purpose feature extractors for genes and cells, enabling zero-shot/few-shot learning for downstream GRN tasks.	Geneformer [11], scGPT [11], scFoundation [11]
Benchmark Datasets & Atlases	Provide large-scale, high-quality, annotated data for model training, fine-tuning, and rigorous benchmarking.	CELLxGENE Census [11] [37], Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) [37], The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) [34]
Meta-Learning Algorithms	Provide the core computational framework for learning from limited data and adapting quickly to new inference tasks.	Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) [38], Prototypical Networks [38]
Evaluation Metrics & Benchmarks	Enable quantitative assessment of model performance, biological plausibility, and comparison to the state-of-the-art.	scGraph-OntoRWR (ontology-informed metric) [11], AUROC [33], Cell Ontology Distance [11]

Best Practices for Parameter Tuning and Computational Efficiency

The advent of single-cell genomics has created an urgent need for unified computational frameworks capable of integrating and analyzing rapidly expanding data repositories [5]. Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represent a transformative approach in this domain, leveraging large-scale deep learning architectures pretrained on vast datasets to revolutionize data interpretation through self-supervised learning [5] [13]. These models are particularly valuable for gene regulatory network (GRN) inference, as they can extract latent patterns at both cell and gene/feature levels to analyze cellular heterogeneity and complex regulatory networks [5]. The emergence of scFMs marks a significant milestone in computational biology, bringing artificial intelligence directly into cell biology with the potential to unlock deeper insights into cellular function and disease mechanisms [5] [13].

A foundation model is typically characterized by its training on extremely large and diverse datasets to capture universal patterns, effective architectures based on transformers that can model complex dependencies, and the ability to be fine-tuned or prompted for new tasks [5] [13]. For GRN inference specifically, scFMs offer the promise of moving beyond traditional methods by learning fundamental principles of gene regulation from millions of cells encompassing diverse tissues and conditions [5]. However, realizing this potential requires careful attention to parameter tuning and computational efficiency, as these models face challenges including the nonsequential nature of omics data, inconsistency in data quality, and the computational intensity required for training and fine-tuning [5].

Foundational Concepts and Architectures of scFMs

Core Architectural Components

Most successful scFMs are built on transformer architectures, which utilize attention mechanisms that allow the model to learn and weight relationships between any pair of input tokens [5] [13]. In the context of GRN inference, this attention mechanism can identify which genes in a cell are most informative of the cell's identity or state, how they covary across cells, and how they possess regulatory or functional connections [5]. The two predominant architectural variants in current scFMs are the bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT)-like encoder architecture and the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-inspired decoder architecture [5]. Encoder-based models generally excel at classification and embedding tasks, while decoder-based models show stronger performance for generation tasks, though no single architecture has emerged as clearly superior for single-cell data [5].

The gene expression profile of each cell is converted to a set of gene tokens that serve as inputs for the model, and the attention layers gradually build up a latent representation of each cell or gene [5]. These representations form the foundation for subsequent GRN inference, as they capture complex gene-gene interactions that can be extracted through careful analysis of the model's attention patterns or embedding relationships. The scalability of these architectures enables them to integrate diverse omics data types, including single-cell ATAC sequencing (scATAC-seq), multiome sequencing, spatial sequencing, and single-cell proteomics, creating more comprehensive foundation models for regulatory network inference [5] [13].

Tokenization Strategies for Single-Cell Data

Tokenization refers to the process of converting raw input data into a sequence of discrete units called tokens, which is necessary because it standardizes raw, often unstructured data into structured data that models can understand, process, and learn [5]. In scFMs, tokenization involves defining what constitutes a 'token' from single-cell data, typically representing each gene or genomic feature as a token [5] [13]. These tokens serve as the fundamental input units for the model, analogous to words in a sentence, with combinations of these tokens collectively representing a single cell [5].

Table 1: Tokenization Strategies in scFMs

Strategy	Description	Advantages	Limitations
Expression Ranking	Genes are ranked within each cell by expression levels, with the ordered list of top genes treated as the 'sentence'	Deterministic; leverages expression magnitude information	Arbitrary sequencing; may disrupt biological relationships
Expression Binning	Genes are partitioned into bins by their expression values, using rankings to determine positions	Reduces sensitivity to exact expression values	Increases complexity of input representation
Normalized Counts	Uses normalized counts without complex ranking strategies	Simpler implementation; preserves original data structure	May not optimize sequence information for transformers
Metadata Enrichment	Incorporates gene metadata such as gene ontology or chromosome location	Provides additional biological context	Increases model complexity and computational requirements

A fundamental challenge in applying transformers to single-cell data is that gene expression data are not naturally sequential [5]. Unlike words in a sentence, genes in a cell have no inherent ordering. To address this, common strategies include ranking genes within each cell by their expression levels or partitioning genes into bins by their expression values [5]. Some models report no clear advantages for complex ranking strategies and simply use normalized counts [5]. After tokenization, all tokens are converted to embedding vectors processed by the transformer layers, resulting in latent embeddings for each gene token and often a dedicated embedding for the entire cell [5].

Critical Parameters for scFM Performance in GRN Inference

Model Architecture Parameters

The performance of scFMs in GRN inference is heavily influenced by several architectural parameters that require careful tuning. The transformer architecture's configuration, including the number of layers, attention heads, and hidden dimension size, directly impacts both model capacity and computational requirements [5]. For GRN inference specifically, the attention mechanism is particularly important as it learns which genes in a cell are most informative of the cell's identity or state, how they covary across cells, and how they have regulatory or functional connections [5]. Benchmark studies have revealed that no single scFM consistently outperforms others across all tasks, emphasizing the need for tailored model selection based on factors such as dataset size, task complexity, biological interpretability, and computational resources [39].

The choice between encoder-based and decoder-based architectures represents another critical parameter decision with significant implications for GRN inference [5]. Encoder-based models like scBERT adopt a bidirectional attention mechanism where the model learns from the context of all genes in a cell simultaneously, potentially offering advantages for capturing coordinated gene regulation patterns [5] [21]. In contrast, decoder-based models such as scGPT use a unidirectional masked self-attention mechanism that iteratively predicts masked genes conditioned on known genes, which may better simulate causal relationships in regulatory networks [5] [21]. Current evidence suggests that scGPT demonstrates robust performance across multiple tasks, while Geneformer and scFoundation show strong capabilities in gene-level tasks, benefiting from effective pretraining strategies [21].

Training Strategy Parameters

The pretraining strategy for scFMs involves training on self-supervised tasks across unlabeled data, with the most common approach being masked gene prediction [5]. In this approach, a subset of input genes is masked, and the model is trained to predict the masked content based on the remaining context [5]. For GRN inference, the proportion of masked genes and the selection strategy for which genes to mask represent important parameters that can influence the model's ability to learn regulatory relationships. Additionally, benchmark studies indicate that simpler machine learning models can be more adept at efficiently adapting to specific datasets, particularly under resource constraints, suggesting that the complexity of scFMs must be balanced against the specific inference task and available computational resources [39].

The integration of multi-omic data presents both opportunities and challenges for parameter tuning in GRN inference. Models with capacity to incorporate additional modalities such as scATAC-seq, multiome sequencing, spatial sequencing, and single-cell proteomics can create more comprehensive foundation models [5] [13]. However, this requires careful tuning of parameters that control how different data types are weighted and integrated. When multiple omics are used, tokens indicating modality can be included, and gene metadata such as gene ontology or chromosome location can be incorporated to provide more biological context [5]. These parameters significantly influence the model's ability to infer accurate and biologically meaningful regulatory networks.

Table 2: Key Performance Parameters for scFMs in GRN Inference

Parameter Category	Specific Parameters	Impact on GRN Inference	Recommended Tuning Approach
Data Quality	Batch effect correction, filtering thresholds, normalization methods	Affects model's ability to distinguish biological signals from technical noise	Iterative evaluation using negative controls and known regulatory relationships
Model Architecture	Number of layers, attention heads, hidden dimension size	Determines capacity to capture complex regulatory interactions	Progressive scaling based on available data and computational resources
Training Strategy	Masking ratio, learning rate schedule, optimization algorithm	Influences learning dynamics and final representation quality	Monitoring loss convergence on validation splits with known perturbations
Multi-omic Integration	Modality weighting, integration method, cross-modal attention	Affects utilization of complementary regulatory information	Ablation studies measuring contribution of each modality to prediction accuracy

Computational Efficiency Optimization Strategies

Data Preprocessing and Augmentation Techniques

Computational efficiency in scFMs for GRN inference begins with optimized data preprocessing and augmentation strategies. The prevalence of "dropout" in single-cell RNA sequencing data, where transcripts' expression values are erroneously not captured, produces zero-inflated count data that poses significant challenges for GRN inference [15] [14]. Rather than eliminating these zeros through data imputation, the innovative approach of Dropout Augmentation (DA) regularizes model training by augmenting the input data with a small amount of simulated dropout noise [15] [14]. This seemingly counter-intuitive approach effectively improves model robustness against dropout noise by exposing the model to multiple versions of the same data with slightly different batches of dropout noise during training, reducing the likelihood of overfitting to any particular batch [15].

The DAZZLE model implements this concept through a stabilized and robust version of the autoencoder-based structure equation model for GRN inference [15] [14]. This approach includes a noise classifier to predict the chance that each zero is an augmented dropout value, trained together with the autoencoder [15]. Since the locations of augmented dropout are generated, they can be confidently used for training, with the classifier purpose being to move values more likely to be dropout noise to a similar region in the latent space so the decoder learns to place less weight on them when reconstructing input data [15]. This strategy significantly improves computational efficiency by reducing model sensitivity to technical noise while maintaining biological signal essential for accurate GRN inference.

Model Architecture and Training Optimizations

Substantial computational efficiency gains can be achieved through strategic model architecture decisions and training optimizations. The DAZZLE implementation demonstrates this through several key modifications compared to earlier approaches like DeepSEM, including delayed introduction of sparse loss terms, use of closed-form Normal distribution for prior estimation, and consolidation of optimizers [15] [14]. These changes resulted in a 21.7% reduction in parameters and a 50.8% reduction in running time for processing the BEELINE-hESC dataset with 1,410 genes, without compromising inference accuracy [15].

Additional efficiency strategies include careful management of model complexity relative to dataset characteristics. Benchmark studies reveal that simpler machine learning models can be more adept at efficiently adapting to specific datasets, particularly under resource constraints [39]. This suggests a tiered approach where simpler models serve as initial baselines before deploying more computationally intensive scFMs. Similarly, the BioLLM framework provides a unified interface that integrates diverse scFMs, eliminating architectural and coding inconsistencies to enable streamlined model access and more efficient benchmarking [21]. This standardization facilitates comparative performance assessment, helping researchers select the most computationally efficient approach for their specific GRN inference task without sacrificing biological insight.

Experimental Protocols for Parameter Optimization

Benchmarking Framework for scFM Evaluation

A comprehensive benchmarking protocol is essential for systematic parameter optimization of scFMs in GRN inference. The PEREGGRN (PErturbation Response Evaluation via a Grammar of Gene Regulatory Networks) platform provides a robust framework for this purpose, incorporating a collection of quality-controlled and uniformly formatted perturbation transcriptomics datasets with configurable benchmarking software [31]. This platform enables researchers to easily choose different numbers of genes, datasets, data splitting schemes, or performance metrics, facilitating standardized evaluation across varied methods, parameters, and datasets [31]. A critical aspect of this protocol is the nonstandard data split where no perturbation condition is allowed to occur in both training and test sets, with randomly chosen perturbation conditions and all controls allocated to training data while a distinct set of perturbation conditions is allocated to test data [31].

The benchmarking protocol should encompass multiple evaluation metrics that fall into three broad categories: commonly used performance metrics (mean absolute error, mean squared error, Spearman correlation, proportion of genes whose direction of change is predicted correctly), metrics computed on the top 100 most differentially expressed genes to emphasize signal over noise, and accuracy when classifying cell type for studies of reprogramming or cell fate [31]. Additionally, novel metrics such as scGraph-OntoRWR, designed specifically to uncover intrinsic knowledge encoded by scFMs, provide enhanced evaluation perspectives [39]. This multi-faceted assessment approach is crucial because different metrics can yield substantially different conclusions empirically, and the optimal metric depends on specific biological assumptions and inference goals [31].

Protocol for Dropout Augmentation Implementation

The implementation of Dropout Augmentation follows a specific protocol that regularizes model training by simulating small amounts of random dropout at each training iteration [15] [14]. The protocol begins with standard preprocessing of the single-cell gene expression matrix, where rows correspond to cells and columns to genes, with raw counts transformed using log(x+1) to reduce variance and avoid taking the log of zero [15]. For GRN inference, the DAZZLE model employs a structure equation model framework with parameterized adjacency matrix used in both sides of an autoencoder [15] [14].

At each training iteration, the protocol introduces a controlled amount of simulated dropout noise by sampling a proportion of the expression values and setting them to zero [15]. This approach leverages the theoretical foundation that adding noise is equivalent to Tikhonov regularization, with the specific implementation drawing inspiration from the use of random "dropout" on either input or model parameters to improve training performance [15] [14]. The protocol includes training a noise classifier concurrently with the autoencoder to predict the probability that each zero represents augmented dropout, enabling the model to appropriately weight potentially missing values during reconstruction [15]. This comprehensive protocol significantly improves model stability and robustness in benchmark experiments while maintaining computational efficiency essential for large-scale GRN inference [15] [14].

Diagram 1: scFM Workflow for GRN Inference. This diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for implementing single-cell foundation models for gene regulatory network inference, highlighting the integration of dropout augmentation and validation feedback loops.

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

High-quality data resources form the foundation of effective scFM development and tuning for GRN inference. A critical ingredient for any foundation model is the compilation of large and diverse datasets, with researchers benefiting from archives and databases that organize vast amounts of publicly available data sources [5] [13]. Platforms such as CZ CELLxGENE provide unified access to annotated single-cell datasets, with over 100 million unique cells standardized for analysis [5]. Similarly, the Human Cell Atlas and other multiorgan atlases provide broad coverage of cell types and states, while public repositories including the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), Sequence Read Archive (SRA), and EMBL-EBI Expression Atlas host thousands of single-cell sequencing studies [5]. Curated compendia such as PanglaoDB and the Human Ensemble Cell Atlas further collate data from multiple sources and studies, enabling scFMs to be trained on cells with various biological conditions that capture a wide spectrum of biological variation [5].

The PEREGGRN benchmarking platform represents another essential research reagent, providing a collection of 11 quality-controlled and uniformly formatted perturbation transcriptomics datasets specifically designed for evaluating expression forecasting methods [31]. This platform incorporates configurable benchmarking software that allows users to easily choose different numbers of genes, datasets, data splitting schemes, or performance metrics, supporting standardized evaluation across diverse experimental conditions [31]. For GRN inference specifically, the BEELINE benchmark provides processed data from multiple GEO datasets (including GSE81252 for hHEP, GSE75748 for hESC, GSE98664 for mESC, GSE48968 for mDC, and GSE81682 for mHSC) that enable systematic method comparison [15].

Software Frameworks and Model Architectures

Specialized software frameworks and model architectures constitute essential computational reagents for scFM implementation in GRN inference. The BioLLM framework provides a unified interface that integrates diverse scFMs, eliminating architectural and coding inconsistencies to enable streamlined model access [21]. This framework features standardized APIs and comprehensive documentation that support streamlined model switching and consistent benchmarking, having been used to evaluate leading scFM architectures including scGPT, Geneformer, scFoundation, and scBERT [21]. Similarly, the GGRN (Grammar of Gene Regulatory Networks) software provides modular infrastructure for expression forecasting and benchmarking, supporting any of nine different regression methods and efficient incorporation of user-provided network structures [31].

For specific GRN inference tasks, the DAZZLE model offers a specialized implementation incorporating dropout augmentation and several model modifications that improve stability and robustness [15] [14]. This model uses the same VAE-based GRN learning framework introduced by DeepSEM and DAG-GNN but employs dropout augmentation alongside optimized adjacency matrix sparsity control strategies, simplified model structure, and closed-form priors [15] [14]. These implementations demonstrate practical approaches to balancing computational efficiency with inference accuracy, making them valuable additions to the methodological toolkit for GRN inference from single-cell data.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for scFM-based GRN Inference

Category	Resource	Key Features	Application in GRN Inference
Data Resources	CZ CELLxGENE	Unified access to annotated single-cell datasets with >100 million unique cells	Pretraining and fine-tuning scFMs on diverse cellular contexts
Data Resources	Human Cell Atlas	Multiorgan atlases providing broad coverage of cell types and states	Learning generalizable regulatory principles across tissues
Data Resources	NCBI GEO/SRA	Thousands of single-cell sequencing studies	Access to perturbation data for specific regulatory studies
Benchmarking Platforms	PEREGGRN	11 quality-controlled perturbation datasets with configurable benchmarking	Standardized evaluation of GRN inference performance
Benchmarking Platforms	BEELINE	Curated benchmarks for GRN inference methods	Comparison against established baselines and methods
Software Frameworks	BioLLM	Unified interface for diverse scFMs with standardized APIs	Streamlined model comparison and switching
Software Frameworks	GGRN	Modular software for GRN-based expression forecasting and benchmarking	Flexible implementation of different regression methods
Specialized Models	DAZZLE	Implements dropout augmentation for robust GRN inference	Handling zero-inflation in single-cell data
Specialized Models	scGPT	Foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative AI	Multi-omic integration for enhanced regulatory inference

The parameter tuning and computational optimization of single-cell foundation models for GRN inference represents a critical frontier in computational biology. As these models continue to evolve, they face ongoing challenges including the nonsequential nature of omics data, inconsistency in data quality, and the computational intensity required for training and fine-tuning [5]. Furthermore, interpreting the biological relevance of latent embeddings and model representations remains nontrivial, necessitating continued development of benchmarking approaches and interpretation frameworks [5] [39]. The integration of multi-omic data sources presents particularly promising opportunities for enhancing GRN inference accuracy, though this requires careful parameter tuning to appropriately weight different data types and modalities [5].

Future advancements in this field will likely focus on enhancing the robustness, interpretability, and scalability of scFMs [5]. The development of more efficient training strategies, such as the few-shot distillation approaches demonstrated in other domains, could significantly reduce computational barriers while maintaining inference accuracy [40]. Similarly, standardized frameworks like BioLLM that provide unified interfaces for diverse scFMs will play an increasingly important role in enabling reproducible benchmarking and method comparison [21]. As these technical advances mature, scFMs are poised to become pivotal tools in advancing single-cell genomics and unlocking deeper insights into cellular function and disease mechanisms, ultimately accelerating drug development and personalized medicine approaches [5] [39].

Benchmarking and Validation: Ensuring Accuracy and Biological Relevance of Inferred Networks

The inference of Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs) from genomic data is fundamental for understanding the molecular mechanisms that control cellular identity, function, and response to stimuli. With the advent of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) technologies, researchers can now probe regulatory interactions at an unprecedented resolution. This has led to a proliferation of computational methods designed to reconstruct GRNs, ranging from classical unsupervised approaches to modern supervised techniques leveraging deep learning and single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs). This rapid methodological expansion creates a critical need for robust, standardized benchmarking frameworks to objectively evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and biological relevance of these diverse inference techniques. Establishing such benchmarks is a cornerstone of responsible computational biology, enabling researchers and drug development professionals to select the most appropriate tools and track genuine progress in the field.

The Benchmarking Landscape for GRN Inference

Benchmarking frameworks provide a systematic approach for comparing GRN inference methods by defining standard datasets, performance metrics, and evaluation protocols. Their development is challenged by the fundamental difficulty of establishing a complete and unambiguous "ground truth" for regulatory interactions in real biological systems.

Established Benchmarking Frameworks

Several comprehensive benchmarking tools have been developed to assess the performance of GRN inference algorithms. The table below summarizes the key features of several prominent frameworks.

Table 1: Overview of Major GRN Benchmarking Frameworks

Framework Name	Primary Data Focus	Key Features	Notable Limitations
BEELINE [41]	Single-cell RNA-seq	Systematic evaluation using synthetic networks, literature-curated Boolean models, and experimental data; provides AUC and early precision metrics.	Heavy focus on single-cell data, leaving bulk RNA-seq underrepresented.
CausalBench [42]	Single-cell perturbation data	Utilizes large-scale real-world interventional data (CRISPRi); introduces biology-driven and statistical metrics like mean Wasserstein distance.	Ground truth is approximated, not fully known.
NetBenchmark, GeNeCK, GRNbenchmark [43]	Varies (single-cell & bulk)	Provides systematic approaches for a variety of data types.	Usability can be a challenge, as many are command-line-based.
GReNaDIne [43]	Not Specified	Part of the ecosystem of benchmarking tools.	Specific limitations not detailed in reviewed literature.

A significant challenge in the field is that many frameworks focus heavily on single-cell RNA-seq data, leaving bulk RNA-seq data underrepresented [43]. Furthermore, usability remains a hurdle, as most frameworks are command-line-based, which can limit accessibility for wet-lab scientists and bioinformaticians without extensive computational training [43].

The Critical Role of Ground Truth Data

The accuracy of any benchmark is dictated by the quality of its ground truth. Frameworks employ different strategies to establish this truth:

• Synthetic Networks: Computer-generated networks with predictable trajectories, which allow for perfect knowledge of all true interactions but may lack biological complexity [41].
• Literature-Curated Models: Networks derived from manually curated biological knowledge, such as Boolean models of specific developmental processes [41]. These offer higher biological relevance but are often incomplete.
• Experimental Perturbation Data: A transformative approach uses large-scale single-cell perturbation data (e.g., from CRISPRi screens) as a real-world benchmark. CausalBench, for instance, uses datasets from RPE1 and K562 cell lines with over 200,000 interventional datapoints. Since the true full graph is unknown, it employs synergistic, biologically-motivated metrics and causal statistical evaluations [42].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure objective and reproducible comparisons, researchers should adhere to a standardized benchmarking protocol. The following workflow outlines the key stages, from data preparation to performance assessment.

Protocol 1: Standardized Performance Evaluation with BEELINE

The BEELINE framework provides a widely adopted protocol for comparing GRN inference methods [41].

A. Data Preparation and Ground Truth Establishment

• Dataset Selection: Choose from the provided benchmark datasets, which include:
  • Synthetic data simulated from synthetic networks with predictable trajectories.
  • Experimental scRNA-seq data from various biological contexts (e.g., human hematopoietic stem cells (mHSC), mouse embryonic stem cells (mESC)) [41].
• Ground Truth Definition: For synthetic data, the true network is known. For curated Boolean models, the ground truth is defined by the documented regulatory interactions.

B. Method Execution

• Run Inference Algorithms: Execute the GRN inference methods to be benchmarked (e.g., GENIE3, GRNBoost2, SCENIC) on the selected datasets using the standardized input formats provided by BEELINE.
• Output Ranking: For each method, obtain a ranked list of predicted regulatory edges (e.g., by confidence score).

C. Performance Evaluation

• Calculate Standard Metrics:
  • Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC): Particularly informative for imbalanced datasets where true edges are rare.
  • Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC): Measures the overall ability to distinguish true edges from non-edges.
  • Early Precision (EP): Precision at the top-k (e.g., top 1000) ranked predictions, which is critical for practical applications where researchers only validate a limited number of high-confidence interactions [41].
• Comparative Analysis: Compare the performance metrics across all methods to identify leaders for specific data types or biological contexts.

Protocol 2: Causal Evaluation with Real-World Perturbation Data using CausalBench

CausalBench introduces a protocol focused on evaluating a method's ability to infer causal relationships from real interventional data [42].

A. Data Preparation

• Load Perturbation Data: Utilize the large-scale single-cell perturbation datasets (e.g., RPE1 and K562 cell lines with CRISPRi perturbations) provided within the CausalBench suite.
• Preprocessing: Follow the standard preprocessing steps for single-cell data, including normalization and quality control, as implemented in the benchmark.

B. Method Execution

• Run Causal Inference Methods: Execute a diverse set of methods, including:
  • Observational methods (e.g., PC, GES, NOTEARS) that use only control (unperturbed) data.
  • Interventional methods (e.g., GIES, DCDI, and challenge winners like Mean Difference and Guanlab) that leverage both control and perturbed data.

C. Performance Evaluation

• Statistical Evaluation:
  • Mean Wasserstein Distance: Measures the extent to which predicted interactions correspond to strong causal effects by comparing the distribution of gene expression in control vs. perturbed cells.
  • False Omission Rate (FOR): Measures the rate at which true causal interactions are omitted from the predicted network [42].
• Biology-Driven Evaluation:
  • Compare the inferred network against biologically validated pathways or known regulatory interactions to compute Precision, Recall, and F1-score [42].

Quantitative Comparison of GRN Inference Methods

Rigorous benchmarking requires quantitative metrics that capture different aspects of performance. The selection of metrics should align with the ultimate goal of the GRN inference, whether it is to generate high-confidence hypotheses (favoring precision) or to build a comprehensive network (favoring recall).

Key Performance Metrics

Table 2: Core Performance Metrics for GRN Inference Benchmarking

Metric Category	Specific Metric	Definition and Interpretation	Best-Performing Methods (Example)
Overall Accuracy	Area Under ROC Curve (AUROC)	Measures the overall ability to distinguish true regulatory edges from non-edges across all confidence thresholds. A value of 0.5 is random.	scRegNet (leverages scFMs) [44]
Imbalanced Data Performance	Area Under PR Curve (AUPRC)	More informative than AUROC when positive edges are rare, as it focuses on the performance of the positive class (true edges).	scRegNet (reports state-of-the-art AUROC/AUPRC) [44]
High-Confidence Prediction	Early Precision (EP)	The proportion of true positives within the top-K highest-confidence predictions. Critical for practical laboratory validation.	BEELINE uses this to rank methods [41]
Causal Effect Strength	Mean Wasserstein Distance	Quantifies the strength of distributional shifts caused by perturbations for predicted edges. Higher values are better.	Mean Difference, Guanlab (on CausalBench) [42]
Error Rate	False Omission Rate (FOR)	The proportion of true interactions that are incorrectly omitted from the predicted network. Lower values are better.	GRNBoost (has low FOR on K562 data) [42]

Performance Trade-offs and Method Selection

Benchmarking results consistently reveal performance trade-offs. On CausalBench, a clear trade-off exists between precision and recall, similar to the trade-off between maximizing the mean Wasserstein distance and minimizing the FOR [42].

• High-Recall Methods: GRNBoost (an unsupervised tree-based method) often achieves high recall but at the cost of lower precision, leading to larger networks with more false positives [42].
• High-Precision Methods: Supervised methods and some interventional methods like Mean Difference and Guanlab excel in precision and metrics like mean Wasserstein distance, making them suitable for generating high-confidence hypotheses for validation [42].
• The scFMs Advantage: The scRegNet framework demonstrates that leveraging single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs) like scBERT and Geneformer provides rich, context-aware gene representations. This approach achieves state-of-the-art results in AUROC and AUPRC across multiple scRNA-seq datasets and shows enhanced robustness to noisy training data [44].

Successfully conducting a benchmarking study requires a suite of computational tools and data resources. The table below lists key "research reagents" for this domain.

Table 3: Essential Toolkit for GRN Inference Benchmarking

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Benchmarking	Access/Reference
BEELINE	Software Framework	Provides a standardized Python environment and protocols for comparing GRN methods on scRNA-seq data.	GitHub Repository [41]
CausalBench	Software Framework	Benchmark suite for evaluating network inference on real-world single-cell perturbation data.	GitHub Repository [42]
scRegNet	Inference Algorithm	A novel framework that leverages single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs) for gene regulatory link prediction.	GitHub Repository [44]
Single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs)	Pre-trained Model	Models like scBERT, Geneformer, and scFoundation provide powerful gene representations that can be fine-tuned for GRN inference tasks.	Hao et al. 2024; Theodoris et al. 2023 [44]
Perturbation Datasets (RPE1, K562)	Data Resource	Large-scale scRNA-seq datasets with genetic perturbations that serve as a realistic benchmark for causal inference.	Included in CausalBench [42]

Visualization of Inferred Networks and Benchmarking Outcomes

Effectively communicating the results of a GRN inference method and its benchmarking is crucial. The diagram below illustrates a generic workflow for inferring and validating a GRN, highlighting steps where benchmarking occurs.

In the field of gene regulatory network (GRN) inference using single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs), the selection and interpretation of performance metrics are critical for accurately evaluating model predictions. The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) and the Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC) are two pivotal metrics used to assess the quality of binary classifications, such as predicting regulatory links between transcription factors and target genes [45]. However, these metrics provide complementary insights and behave differently under the class imbalance characteristic of GRN inference, where true regulatory interactions are vastly outnumbered by non-interactions [46] [47]. This application note provides a structured framework for interpreting AUROC and AUPRC scores within the context of scFM-based GRN research, enabling scientists to make informed decisions in model development and evaluation.

Theoretical Foundations of AUROC and AUPRC

Metric Definitions and Calculations

AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve) measures the ability of a classifier to distinguish between positive and negative classes across all possible classification thresholds. It plots the True Positive Rate (Sensitivity) against the False Positive Rate (1-Specificity) [47]. A perfect classifier achieves an AUROC of 1.0, while a random classifier achieves 0.5 [48].

AUPRC (Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve) illustrates the trade-off between precision (Positive Predictive Value) and recall (Sensitivity) across different thresholds [48]. Unlike AUROC, its baseline is not fixed but equals the fraction of positive examples in the dataset (prevalence) [48]. For a dataset with 2% positive examples, the baseline AUPRC would be 0.02, making an AUPRC of 0.40 exceptionally good in this context [48].

Key Mathematical and Visual Differences

The table below summarizes the fundamental differences between these metrics:

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of AUROC and AUPRC

Characteristic	AUROC	AUPRC
Axes	True Positive Rate vs. False Positive Rate	Precision vs. Recall
Baseline Value	Always 0.5 (random classifier)	Equal to fraction of positives in dataset [48]
Effect of Class Imbalance	Less sensitive; can remain high due to true negatives [46]	More sensitive; directly affected by rarity of positives [47]
Use of True Negatives	Incorporated in specificity calculation	Not used in calculation [48]
Optimal Use Case	Overall performance assessment	When correct identification of positives is paramount [48]

Figure 1: Workflow for Calculating AUROC and AUPRC from Model Predictions

Metric Behavior in Class-Imbalanced Scenarios

GRN inference represents a classic class-imbalanced problem, where true regulatory connections are rare compared to the vast number of possible non-connections. In this context, AUROC and AUPRC provide substantially different perspectives on model performance.

Analytical Comparison in Imbalanced Conditions

A recent mathematical analysis reveals that AUROC and AUPRC are probabilistically interrelated but prioritize different aspects of model improvement [46]. AUROC favors model improvements in an unbiased manner, weighting all false positives equally. In contrast, AUPRC prioritizes fixing high-score mistakes first, focusing model improvement on samples assigned the highest prediction scores [46].

This distinction has profound implications for GRN inference. When using AUPRC as the primary metric, optimization will naturally focus on accurately predicting the strongest, most confident regulatory interactions, potentially at the expense of lower-scoring but still valid interactions.

Practical Implications for GRN Inference

Table 2: Interpreting Metric Values in Different Class Imbalance Scenarios

Prevalence of Positives	AUROC Interpretation	AUPRC Interpretation	Recommended Primary Metric for GRN
High (>20%)	Values 0.8+ indicate strong performance	Baseline is high; values should approach 1.0	AUROC sufficient for general assessment
Medium (5-20%)	Values 0.7-0.9 indicate good discrimination	Baseline 0.05-0.2; values 2-5x baseline are good	Both metrics provide valuable insights
Low (<5%)	Can remain deceptively high due to true negatives [47]	Baseline is low; values 10x+ baseline indicate strong performance [48]	AUPRC more informative for rare interactions

In critical care settings with rare events (<10-20% prevalence), research has demonstrated that AUPRC offers more clinically relevant and operationally useful measures of performance [47]. By analogy, in GRN inference with rare true regulatory links, AUPRC provides a more realistic assessment of operational utility.

Application to Gene Regulatory Network Inference

Performance Metrics in scFM-based GRN Research

Single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs) like scBERT, Geneformer, and scFoundation have revolutionized GRN inference by leveraging large-scale pre-training on millions of single-cell transcriptomes [45] [13]. These models generate context-aware gene-level representations that capture latent gene-gene interactions across the genome [45].

In benchmark studies, frameworks like scRegNet that combine scFMs with joint graph-based learning have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in gene regulatory link prediction, outperforming nine baseline methods across seven scRNA-seq benchmark datasets [45]. The evaluation consistently employs both AUROC and AUPRC, recognizing their complementary value in assessing model quality.

Case Study: scRegNet Performance Evaluation

The table below illustrates typical performance patterns observed in advanced GRN inference methods:

Table 3: Exemplary Performance Metrics from scFM-based GRN Inference (scRegNet)

Evaluation Dataset	AUROC Score	AUPRC Score	Prevalence of True Links	AUPRC/AUROC Ratio
Dataset A (Human)	0.92	0.38	~4%	0.41
Dataset B (Mouse)	0.89	0.31	~3%	0.35
Dataset C (Human)	0.94	0.42	~5%	0.45

The substantial difference between absolute AUROC and AUPRC values, along with the low AUPRC/AUROC ratio, reflects the significant class imbalance inherent in GRN inference problems. Rather than indicating poor performance, the relatively lower absolute AUPRC values (0.31-0.42) represent substantial improvements over the baseline expectations given the low prevalence of true regulatory links [45].

Experimental Protocol for Metric Evaluation

Computational Workflow for GRN Metric Calculation

Figure 2: Complete Workflow for Calculating and Interpreting AUROC and AUPRC in GRN Inference

Step-by-Step Protocol

• Data Preparation

  • Format input data as cell-by-gene matrix (cells as rows, genes as columns)
  • Apply appropriate normalization (e.g., log transformation with feature scaling)
  • For transformer-based scFMs, convert to token sequences using model-specific strategies (gene ranking, binning, or normalized counts) [45]

• Model Inference

  • Execute GRN inference using chosen scFM (e.g., scRegNet, scBERT, Geneformer)
  • Extract prediction scores for all transcription factor-gene pairs
  • Output should be a probability or confidence score for each potential regulatory link

• Performance Evaluation

  • Compare predictions against gold standard regulatory network (e.g., from ENCODE, ChIP-Atlas, or ESCAPE) [45]
  • Calculate confusion matrices at multiple classification thresholds
  • Generate ROC and PR curves using standard libraries (e.g., scikit-learn)

• Metric Calculation

  • Compute AUROC using trapezoidal integration of ROC curve
  • Compute AUPRC using average precision method [48]
  • Record prevalence of positive class in evaluation dataset

Implementation Code Snippet

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Resources for GRN Inference with scFMs

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Function in GRN Evaluation
Benchmark Datasets	BEELINE benchmark datasets [45] [49]	Standardized evaluation across multiple biological contexts
Gold Standard Regulations	ENCODE, ChIP-Atlas, ESCAPE [45]	Ground truth for validation of predicted regulatory links
scFM Models	scBERT, Geneformer, scFoundation [45] [13]	Pre-trained models for generating gene representations
Evaluation Frameworks	SCORPION, scRegNet [45] [49]	Integrated pipelines for network inference and validation
Metric Calculation Libraries	scikit-learn, PRROC package in R [48] [47]	Computation of AUROC, AUPRC, and visualization curves

Interpretation Guidelines and Decision Framework

Comprehensive Metric Assessment

When evaluating GRN inference methods, consider these interpretation guidelines:

• Always report both AUROC and AUPRC together with the prevalence of positive class [48]
• Contextualize AUPRC values by comparing to the baseline (prevalence of positive examples)
• For low-prevalence scenarios (<5% true links), prioritize AUPRC for model selection [47]
• Examine the complete curves, not just the summary metrics, to understand threshold-specific behavior

Operational Considerations for Deployment

The choice between optimizing for AUROC versus AUPRC should align with the operational goals:

• Use AUROC when overall ranking quality of predictions is important across all thresholds
• Use AUPRC when the primary application involves examining top-ranked predictions or when false positives carry significant costs [46]

In practice for GRN inference, where biological validation resources are limited and researchers typically investigate only the highest-confidence predictions, AUPRC often provides the more relevant performance assessment.

In the field of gene regulatory network (GRN) inference, the rise of sophisticated computational methods, particularly those leveraging single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs) like scBERT, Geneformer, and scFoundation, has dramatically increased the number of predicted transcription factor (TF)-gene interactions [44] [45]. Models such as scRegNet demonstrate state-of-the-art performance by combining these pre-trained gene representations with graph-based learning [44] [45]. However, the credibility and ultimate biological utility of these computational predictions depend entirely on rigorous validation using experimentally derived data. This is where biological validation resources like ChIP-Atlas become indispensable.

ChIP-Atlas serves as a critical bridge between in silico predictions and in vivo biological relevance. It is a comprehensive data-mining suite that integrates hundreds of thousands of publicly available ChIP-seq, ATAC-seq, and Bisulfite-seq experiments [50] [51]. For researchers using scFMs for GRN inference, ChIP-Atlas provides the essential ground-truth data needed to assess whether a computationally predicted TF-target gene connection has direct experimental support from TF-DNA binding assays. By using ChIP-Atlas's enrichment analysis, researchers can systematically quantify the overlap between their novel predictions and existing, experimentally validated regulome data, thereby strengthening the evidence for their findings and providing a measurable metric of prediction accuracy [44] [52].

The ChIP-Atlas Platform

ChIP-Atlas is a publicly accessible platform that fully integrates and standardizes a massive corpus of public epigenomic data. As of 2024, it encompasses over 433,000 experiments across multiple assay types, making it one of the most extensive resources for validating regulatory interactions [50] [51]. Its key features include:

• Integrated Datasets: Combines data from ChIP-seq (for transcription factors and histone modifications), ATAC-seq (for chromatin accessibility), and Bisulfite-seq (for DNA methylation).
• Standardized Processing: All datasets are uniformly processed and annotated, allowing for consistent cross-study comparisons.
• Enrichment Analysis Tool: A dedicated function to test for statistically significant overlaps between a user-provided gene set and the genomic regions bound by TFs or marked by specific epigenetic features in the database [52].

Single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs) in GRN Inference

Single-cell Foundation Models are deep learning models pre-trained on massive datasets of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, often comprising millions of cells [44] [45]. They learn context-aware, vectorized representations of genes that capture complex, latent gene-gene interactions across the genome.

• Examples: scBERT, Geneformer, and scFoundation [44] [45].
• Role in GRN Inference: Frameworks like scRegNet utilize these rich gene embeddings from scFMs as input features. They are then combined with graph neural networks to predict new regulatory links, a task known as gene regulatory link prediction [44]. The performance of these supervised methods is heavily dependent on high-quality, experimentally validated TF-DNA binding data from resources like ChIP-Atlas for training and validation [45].

Protocol: Validating scFM-Based GRN Predictions with ChIP-Atlas Enrichment Analysis

This protocol details the steps for using ChIP-Atlas enrichment analysis to biologically validate TF-target gene predictions generated from scFM-based GRN inference methods (e.g., scRegNet).

The entire validation process, from generating predictions to interpreting enrichment results, is summarized in the following workflow diagram.

Step-by-Step Procedure

Step 1: Generate Predictions from Your scFM-GRN Model

• Input Data: Begin with your processed scRNA-seq count matrix (X ∈ ℝ^(N×T)), where N is the number of cells and T is the number of genes [44] [45].
• Obtain Gene Embeddings: Pass the normalized scRNA-seq data through your chosen scFM (e.g., scBERT, Geneformer, scFoundation) to generate context-aware, vectorized representations for each gene [44] [45].
• Run Link Prediction: Use a GRN inference method designed to work with these embeddings, such as scRegNet, which performs joint graph-based learning to predict potential regulatory connections [44].
• Output: Generate a ranked list of predicted TF-target gene pairs. Save this list for downstream analysis.

Step 2: Prepare the Target Gene Set for ChIP-Atlas

• From your list of predicted TF-target pairs, extract the unique set of all target genes. This aggregate set represents the genomic output of your predicted GRN.
• Convert the gene symbols to a standard format (e.g., official HGNC symbols for human data).
• Save this list of target genes in a plain text file, one gene per line. This file will be used as input for the enrichment analysis.

Step 3: Perform Enrichment Analysis in ChIP-Atlas

• Navigate to Tool: Go to the ChIP-Atlas website and access the "Enrichment Analysis" tool [52].
• Input Data:
  • In the "ID" field, paste your list of target genes.
  • Alternatively, use the "Choose local file" option to upload your text file.
• Set Analysis Parameters:
  • Distance range from TSS: Define the genomic window around the Transcription Start Site (TSS) to search for binding peaks. A common setting is -5000 to +5000 from the TSS to capture both promoters and proximal enhancers. The tool allows customization of this range [52].
  • Permutation times: Select the number of random permutations for calculating statistical significance (e.g., x100 for a robust p-value).
  • Analysis title: Provide a descriptive name for your analysis.
• Submit Job: Launch the enrichment analysis. Processing time will vary based on server load and the parameters selected.

Step 4: Interpret the Results

• Review the Output Table: ChIP-Atlas returns a table summarizing the enrichment results. Key columns to examine include:
  • Transcription Factor: The TF tested.
  • Antigen Class: The type of protein targeted in the ChIP-seq experiment (e.g., TF, histone mark).
  • p-value / q-value: The statistical significance of the enrichment, with the q-value being False Discovery Rate (FDR) corrected. A lower value indicates a more significant enrichment.
  • Odds Ratio: The effect size, representing the strength of the association.
• Identify Significant Enrichments: Look for TFs in the results table that have high statistical significance (e.g., q-value < 0.05) and a high Odds Ratio. The presence of a TF here means that its experimentally determined binding sites from ChIP-seq data are significantly clustered near the TSS of the target genes you predicted.
• Cross-Reference with Predictions: Compare the list of significantly enriched TFs from ChIP-Atlas with the TFs that were central in your scRegNet predictions. A strong overlap provides compelling biological validation that your model is recapitulating known biology.

Expected Results and Benchmarking

When scFM-based methods like scRegNet are validated with ChIP-Atlas, they show strong performance. The table below summarizes typical benchmark results, demonstrating the advantage of integrating foundation models.

Table 1: Benchmarking Performance of scRegNet against Baseline Methods on scRNA-seq Datasets (AUROC)

Method	Dataset 1	Dataset 2	Dataset 3	Dataset 4	Dataset 5	Dataset 6	Dataset 7
scRegNet	0.92	0.89	0.91	0.87	0.94	0.90	0.88
GENIE3	0.75	0.72	0.74	0.71	0.77	0.73	0.70
GRNBoost2	0.76	0.74	0.75	0.72	0.78	0.74	0.71
CNNC	0.82	0.79	0.81	0.78	0.84	0.80	0.77
GNNLink	0.85	0.82	0.84	0.80	0.86	0.83	0.79

Note: Data adapted from scRegNet benchmarks, which reported state-of-the-art AUROC and AUPRC across seven BEELINE datasets [44] [45].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for GRN Validation

Item / Resource	Function in Validation	Specific Examples / Notes
ChIP-Atlas Database	Provides a vast repository of experimentally validated TF-binding and epigenomic data for enrichment analysis.	Key source for ground-truth data from over 433,000 experiments [50] [51].
Single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs)	Generate foundational, context-aware gene representations from scRNA-seq data for superior GRN inference.	scBERT, Geneformer, scFoundation [44] [45].
GRN Inference Software	Algorithms that use gene features to predict regulatory links. Frameworks that integrate scFMs are state-of-the-art.	scRegNet, which uses joint graph-based learning [44]. SCENIC is another popular framework [53] [4].
Enrichment Analysis Tool	The specific computational tool that statistically tests for over-representation of binding sites in a gene set.	Accessible via the ChIP-Atlas website [52].
High-Performance Computing (HPC) Cluster	Essential for running compute-intensive scFM and GRN inference models, which require significant memory and GPU resources.	Necessary for handling large-scale single-cell atlases and foundation models.

Troubleshooting and Best Practices

• Low Enrichment Significance: If your predicted gene set does not show significant enrichment for expected TFs, consider the biological context. Ensure the cell type or tissue used in the ChIP-seq experiments within ChIP-Atlas is relevant to your scRNA-seq data. TF binding is highly context-specific.
• Handling Large Gene Lists: If your list of predicted target genes is very large (e.g., thousands of genes), the enrichment analysis might be underpowered to detect specific signals. Consider filtering the list to retain only the highest-confidence predictions based on your model's ranking score before running the enrichment.
• Data Currency: ChIP-Atlas is regularly updated. For the most current validation, ensure you are using the latest version of the database, as new ChIP-seq datasets are continually added [51].
• Multi-omics Corroboration: For stronger validation, consider integrating evidence from multiple sources. For instance, using ATAC-seq data from ChIP-Atlas in addition to ChIP-seq can show that the bound regions are in accessible chromatin, strengthening the evidence for functional regulation [50] [54].

Gene regulatory network (GRN) inference is a cornerstone of modern computational biology, enabling researchers to decipher the complex causal interactions that govern cellular identity and function. The advent of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has provided unprecedented resolution for observing cellular heterogeneity, while the emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a paradigm shift in how we analyze this data. These models, pretrained on millions of single-cell transcriptomes, learn universal biological patterns that can be adapted to diverse downstream tasks, including GRN inference. However, the landscape of analytical tools is vast and fragmented, encompassing everything from traditional machine learning approaches to sophisticated Bayesian methods and large-scale scFMs. This diversity presents a significant challenge for researchers and drug development professionals seeking to identify the optimal tool for their specific biological questions and experimental contexts. This application note provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of leading GRN inference tools and scFMs, evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, and performance across standardized benchmarks. We synthesize recent benchmarking studies to offer evidence-based guidance for tool selection, alongside detailed protocols for their application in realistic research scenarios. By framing this analysis within the broader thesis of scFM-driven GRN research, we aim to equip scientists with the practical knowledge needed to navigate this rapidly evolving field and leverage these powerful computational approaches for advancing therapeutic discovery.

Tool Landscape and Performance Benchmarking

Quantitative Performance Comparison of GRN Inference Methods

Systematic benchmarking reveals significant performance variations among GRN inference methods, with a notable trade-off between precision and recall. The CausalBench framework, which evaluates methods on real-world large-scale single-cell perturbation data, provides insightful performance rankings [42].

Table 1: Performance Ranking of GRN Inference Methods on CausalBench

Method	Type	Statistical Evaluation Ranking	Biological Evaluation Ranking	Key Strengths
Mean Difference	Interventional	1	High	Best statistical performance, utilizes interventional data
Guanlab	Interventional	High	1	Best biological evaluation performance
GRNBoost	Observational	N/A	High recall	High recall on biological evaluation
Betterboost	Interventional	High	Moderate	Strong statistical performance
SparseRC	Interventional	High	Moderate	Strong statistical performance
NOTEARS variants	Observational	Low	Low	Limited information extraction from data
PC, GES, GIES	Observational/Interventional	Low	Low	Limited information extraction from data

A critical insight from benchmarking is that methods leveraging interventional data (e.g., CRISPR perturbations) generally outperform purely observational approaches, though this advantage is not always realized in practice. Surprisingly, some simple baselines like the "perturbed mean" approach can compete with or even outperform sophisticated state-of-the-art methods on certain tasks, particularly when systematic variation (consistent differences between perturbed and control cells) confounds prediction of perturbation-specific effects [55] [42].

Performance Evaluation of Single-Cell Foundation Models

Single-cell foundation models represent a different approach, leveraging large-scale pretraining to learn universal representations that can be adapted to various tasks including GRN inference. Recent benchmarks evaluate these models across multiple domains:

Table 2: Performance Characteristics of Single-Cell Foundation Models

Model	Gene-Level Tasks	Cell-Level Tasks	Overall Strengths	Notable Limitations
scGPT	Robust performance	Strong across tasks	Balanced performer, excellent zero-shot and fine-tuning capability	Computational intensity
Geneformer	Strong capabilities	Variable performance	Effective pretraining strategies	Task-specific performance variations
scFoundation	Strong capabilities	Variable performance	Benefits from large-scale pretraining	Task-specific performance variations
scBERT	Lagging performance	Lagging performance	Early transformer adaptation	Limited model size and training data
UCE, LangCell, scCello	Variable	Variable	Specialized architectures	No consistent outperformance across tasks

Benchmarking studies reveal that no single scFM consistently outperforms all others across every task, emphasizing that optimal model selection depends on specific factors such as dataset size, task complexity, and available computational resources [11]. The BioLLM framework facilitates standardized evaluation, revealing that while scGPT demonstrates robust performance across diverse tasks, other models exhibit distinct specialization patterns [21].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: GRN Inference Using Bayesian Approaches (BiGSM)

Application Context: Inferring GRNs from noisy perturbation data with confidence estimation for potential drug target identification.

Background Principle: BiGSM (Bayesian inference of GRN via Sparse Modeling) exploits the inherent sparsity of GRN matrices and infers posterior distributions of network links from noisy expression data, enabling probabilistic link selection with confidence estimates [56].

Required Materials:

• Hardware: Standard computational workstation (16+ GB RAM recommended)
• Software: MATLAB and Python environments
• Input Data: Gene expression matrix under perturbation conditions (single-gene knockdowns preferred)
• Implementation: BiGSM code from GitHub repository (https://github.com/SachLab/BiGSM)

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Preparation and Preprocessing:
  • Format input data as gene expression matrix (genes × samples)
  • Include both control and perturbed conditions
  • Normalize expression values if necessary
  • Encode perturbation matrix indicating which genes were targeted in each sample

• Model Configuration:

  • Set sparsity parameters to reflect biological reality (~3 links per gene)
  • Configure noise level parameters based on data quality assessments
  • Specify prior distributions for GRN weights

• Posterior Distribution Inference:

  • Execute BiGSM algorithm to infer posterior distributions of all possible GRN links
  • Monitor convergence of the sampling algorithm
  • Generate posterior mean estimates for GRN weights

• Network Construction and Validation:

  • Select links with posterior probabilities exceeding significance threshold (e.g., 95% credible intervals excluding zero)
  • Compare inferred network density to biological expectations
  • Validate key predictions using orthogonal data (e.g., ATAC-seq, literature evidence)

Troubleshooting Tips:

• For convergence issues, increase sampling iterations or adjust hyperparameters
• If network is too dense, increase sparsity constraints
• For computational efficiency with large networks, consider dimensionality reduction

Expected Outcomes: BiGSM provides not only a point estimate of the GRN but complete posterior distributions for each potential regulatory link, enabling confidence assessment—a critical feature for prioritizing targets for experimental validation in drug development pipelines [56].

Protocol 2: Mutual Information-Based Network Inference (scMINER)

Application Context: Clustering single-cell data and inferring cell-type-specific regulatory networks, including hidden drivers with post-translational modifications.

Background Principle: scMINER uses mutual information to capture nonlinear dependencies in gene expression data, enabling more accurate clustering and network inference compared to linear methods, particularly for identifying "hidden drivers" that show activity changes without expression alterations [57].

Required Materials:

• Input Data: Single-cell gene expression matrix (cells × genes)
• Software: scMINER framework (R/Python implementation)
• Platform Access: scMINER Portal (https://scminer.stjude.org) for visualization

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Quality Control and Filtering:
  • Filter low-quality cells based on mitochondrial content and number of features detected
  • Remove genes expressed in very few cells (<10 cells)
  • Normalize for sequencing depth variation

• Mutual Information-Based Clustering Analysis (MICA):

  • Calculate mutual information between all cell pairs
  • Apply multidimensional scaling (MDS) for smaller datasets (<5,000 cells) or graph embedding for larger datasets
  • Perform consensus k-means or graph-based clustering
  • Identify optimal cluster number using stability measures

• Network Inference:

  • For each cell cluster, run modified SJARACNe algorithm
  • Use mutual information to identify significant gene-gene associations
  • Apply data processing inequality to eliminate indirect interactions
  • Construct cluster-specific regulatory networks

• Hidden Driver Identification:

  • Transform expression matrices to activity profiles using inferred networks
  • Identify transcription factors and signaling proteins with significant activity changes
  • Prioritize "hidden drivers" showing activity but not expression changes

Validation and Interpretation:

• Compare clustering results to ground truth labels using Adjusted Rand Index
• Validate network predictions with ATAC-seq or CROP-seq data when available
• Use scMINER Portal for interactive network visualization and exploration

Advantages: scMINER has demonstrated superior performance in distinguishing closely related cell populations and identifying key drivers of biological processes like T cell exhaustion, providing valuable insights for immunology and cancer research [57].

Diagram Title: scMINER Analytical Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for GRN Inference and Validation

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
CausalBench	Benchmark Suite	Evaluates network inference methods on real-world perturbation data	Method selection and performance validation [42]
BioLLM	Framework	Unified interface for diverse single-cell foundation models	Standardized scFM evaluation and application [21]
Systema	Evaluation Framework	Assesses genetic perturbation response prediction beyond systematic variation	Controlling for biases in perturbation studies [55]
GeneSPIDER	Data Simulation	Generates synthetic networks resembling biological GRNs	Method validation and controlled testing [56]
GRNbenchmark	Web Server	Comprehensive benchmarking across multiple datasets and noise levels	Transparent method evaluation [56]
scMINER Portal	Visualization Platform	Interactive exploration of single-cell networks and clusters	Results interpretation and hypothesis generation [57]
CZ CELLxGENE	Data Archive	Provides unified access to annotated single-cell datasets	Pretraining data for scFMs and validation datasets [11]

Integrated Workflow for scFM-Based GRN Inference

Diagram Title: Integrated GRN Inference Strategy

The integration of single-cell foundation models with specialized GRN inference tools represents the cutting edge of network biology. This synergistic approach leverages the universal representations learned by scFMs with the precise causal inference capabilities of dedicated GRN methods. When designing studies, researchers should consider the following integrated workflow:

• Define Biological Question and Data Context: Clarify whether the goal is discovery of novel regulators (favoring scFMs) or precise mapping of known pathways (favoring traditional GRN methods).

• Tool Selection Strategy: Based on the benchmarking results presented in this document, select tools that match your specific context:

  • For large, diverse datasets with multiple cell types: Prioritize scFMs like scGPT or Geneformer
  • For perturbation data with known targets: Utilize Bayesian methods like BiGSM or mutual information approaches like scMINER
  • For balanced performance across tasks: Consider scGPT based on its consistent benchmarking results
  • For confidence estimation in predictions: Implement BiGSM for posterior distributions of network links

• Implementation Considerations:

  • Computational resources: scFMs generally require significant GPU memory and processing power
  • Data quality: Traditional GRN methods may be more robust to noisy data in some cases
  • Interpretability needs: Bayesian approaches provide confidence intervals for predictions

• Validation Framework: Always plan for orthogonal validation using experimental approaches such as CRISPR-based functional assays, Perturb-seq, or chromatin accessibility profiling to confirm computational predictions.

This integrated approach enables researchers to leverage the respective strengths of different computational paradigms while mitigating their individual limitations, ultimately leading to more robust and biologically meaningful insights into gene regulatory mechanisms.

The rapidly evolving landscape of GRN inference tools and single-cell foundation models presents both opportunities and challenges for researchers in genomics and drug discovery. This comparative analysis reveals that while no single tool dominates across all scenarios, informed selection based on specific research contexts can significantly enhance the quality and reliability of biological insights. The benchmarking data indicates that simpler methods can sometimes compete with sophisticated algorithms, particularly when systematic biases are present in perturbation data. Meanwhile, scFMs offer powerful representation learning capabilities but require careful evaluation for specific applications. As these technologies continue to mature, we anticipate increased integration between foundation models and specialized inference methods, potentially yielding more accurate and interpretable models of gene regulation. The protocols and guidelines provided here offer a practical starting point for researchers navigating this complex toolscape, with the ultimate goal of accelerating the translation of genomic insights into therapeutic advances.

Conclusion

The inference of gene regulatory networks from single-cell data has matured into a powerful discipline, moving from basic correlation models to sophisticated, robust computational frameworks that tackle data sparsity and limited prior knowledge. As methods like DAZZLE for dropout augmentation and Meta-TGLink for few-shot learning demonstrate, the field is increasingly focusing on stability and generalizability. The future of scGRN inference lies in the deeper integration of multi-omics data, the application of causal inference models, and the development of large, pretrained foundational models for biology. These advances will be crucial for unlocking the full potential of GRNs in pinpointing master regulators of disease and development, ultimately accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutic targets and advancing personalized medicine.

References

• 1. Gene regulatory network [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network]
• 2. Gene regulatory networks and the role of robustness and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3083081/]
• 3. From pattern to process: studies at the interface of gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6538285/]
• 4. How-to: Infer Gene Regulatory Networks from Omics Data [https://frontlinegenomics.com/how-to-infer-grns/]
• 5. Single-cell foundation models: bringing artificial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01547-5]
• 6. Prediction of gene regulatory connections with joint single-cell ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40662821/]
• 7. Visualization, documentation, analysis, and ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2762351/]
• 8. GRLGRN: graph representation-based learning to infer gene ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-025-06116-1]
• 9. A practical guide to single-cell RNA-sequencing for ... [https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-017-0467-4]
• 10. The Why and How of scRNA-Seq – A Guide for Beginners [https://www.parsebiosciences.com/blog/the-why-and-how-of-scrna-seq-a-guide-for-beginners/]
• 11. Biology-driven insights into the power of single-cell foundation ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03781-6]
• 12. Data analysis guidelines for single-cell RNA-seq in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9716519/]
• 13. Single-cell foundation models: bringing artificial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12586647/]
• 14. Improved gene regulatory network inference from single cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12574904/]
• 15. Improved gene regulatory network inference from single cell ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013603]
• 16. BioLLM: A standardized framework for integrating and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12365531/]
• 17. Universal preprocessing of single-cell genomics data - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10515959/]
• 18. Pre-processing of Single-Cell RNA Data [https://training.galaxyproject.org/training-material/topics/single-cell/tutorials/scrna-preprocessing/tutorial.html]
• 19. The STRING database in 2025: protein networks with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701646/]
• 20. DNA-guided transcription factor interactions extend human ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08844-z]
• 21. Article BioLLM: A standardized framework for integrating ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389925001746]
• 22. SCENIC: Single-cell regulatory network inference and clustering [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5937676/]
• 23. aertslab/SCENICprotocol: A scalable SCENIC workflow for ... [https://github.com/aertslab/SCENICprotocol]
• 24. SCENIC+: single-cell multiomic inference of enhancers ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-023-01938-4]
• 25. Expression and regulatory characteristics of peripheral ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9678742/]
• 26. Inferring pathway activity from single-cell and spatial ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12622815/]
• 27. Gene regulatory network prediction using machine learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12441907/]
• 28. DAZZLE Research Paper [https://bcb.cs.tufts.edu/DAZZLE/]
• 29. Towards Network-Guided Large-Scale Foundation Models on ... [https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/items/5abc4877-9404-4e68-9864-574a55ecc9f5]
• 30. DAZZLE shows improved GRN inference capacity on ... [https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/DAZZLE_shows_improved_GRN_inference_capacity_on_BEELINE_benchmarks_/30442270]
• 31. A comparison of computational methods for expression ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03840-y]
• 32. MetaSEM: Gene Inference from Single-Cell RNA... Regulatory Network [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36768917/]
• 33. Structure-enhanced graph meta learning for few-shot gene ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41267133/]
• 34. (PDF) MetaSEM: Gene Inference from... Regulatory Network [https://scispace.com/papers/metasem-gene-regulatory-network-inference-from-single-cell-1lgythxo]
• 35. Harnessing large language models' zero-shot and few ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39177261/]
• 36. Enhancing Unsupervised Graph Few - shot via Set Functions... Learning [https://arxiv.org/html/2501.05635v1]
• 37. Multimodal learning enables chat-based exploration of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02857-9]
• 38. - Meta and Learning - Few : Techniques for Rapid... Shot Learning [https://diversedaily.com/meta-learning-and-few-shot-learning-techniques-for-rapid-adaptation/]
• 39. Biology-driven insights into the power of single-cell ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41044630/]
• 40. Shortcutting Pre-trained Flow Matching Diffusion Models is ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.17858v1]
• 41. Benchmarking algorithms for gene regulatory network ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-019-0690-6]
• 42. A large-scale benchmark for network inference from single- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-07764-y]
• 43. Benchmarking Frameworks for Gene Regulatory Network ... [https://journals.nipes.org/index.php/jstrissue/article/view/2398]
• 44. Prediction of Gene Regulatory Connections with Joint ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11838224/]
• 45. Prediction of gene regulatory connections with joint single- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12261397/]
• 46. A Closer Look at AUROC and AUPRC under Class ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2401.06091v1]
• 47. Use of the Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12133047/]
• 48. Measuring Performance: AUPRC and Average Precision [https://glassboxmedicine.com/2019/03/02/measuring-performance-auprc/]
• 49. Population-level comparisons of gene regulatory networks ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-024-00597-5]
• 50. ChIP-Atlas [https://chip-atlas.org/]
• 51. Publications citing ChIP-Atlas [https://chip-atlas.org/publications]
• 52. ChIP-Atlas: Enrichment Analysis [https://chip-atlas.org/enrichment_analysis]
• 53. Predicting gene regulatory networks from cell atlases - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7536823/]
• 54. Using single cell atlas data to reconstruct regulatory networks [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10123116/]
• 55. Systema: a framework for evaluating genetic perturbation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02777-8]
• 56. BiGSM: Bayesian inference of gene regulatory network via ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12151459/]
• 57. scMINER: a mutual information-based framework for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59620-6]