Single-Cell Foundation Models: Revolutionizing Multi-Omics Data Integration for Biomedical Research

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive exploration of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) and their transformative role in multi-omics data integration. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it covers the foundational concepts of scFMs, including their transformer-based architectures and pretraining strategies. The piece delves into practical methodologies and applications across areas like cell type annotation and drug response prediction, while also addressing key computational challenges and optimization strategies. Finally, it offers a critical evaluation of current tools through benchmarking studies and validation frameworks, synthesizing how these advanced AI models are bridging the gap between complex cellular data and actionable biological insights for precision medicine.

Understanding Single-Cell Foundation Models: Core Concepts and Architectural Principles

Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represent a revolutionary class of artificial intelligence tools transforming how researchers analyze cellular biology. Defined as large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast single-cell datasets at scale, scFMs are designed to be adaptable to a wide range of downstream biological tasks through fine-tuning [1]. The development of scFMs marks a significant milestone in computational biology, mirroring the transformative impact that foundation models have had in natural language processing (NLP) and computer vision [1] [2].

The core premise behind scFMs is that by exposing a model to millions of cells encompassing diverse tissues, species, and biological conditions, the model can learn the fundamental principles governing cellular behavior and gene regulation that are generalizable to new datasets and research questions [1]. This approach has become increasingly feasible with the accumulation of massive single-cell datasets in public repositories, with platforms like CZ CELLxGENE now providing unified access to over 100 million unique cells standardized for analysis [1].

Conceptual Framework: scFMs as Large Language Models for Biology

The Core Analogy: Cells as Sentences

The relationship between scFMs and large language models (LLMs) forms the theoretical foundation of this approach. In this conceptual framework, individual cells are treated analogously to sentences, while genes or genomic features along with their expression values are treated as words or tokens [1] [2]. This biological "language" consists of the patterns and relationships between genes that define cellular identity, state, and function.

Just as LLMs learn the statistical relationships between words in vast text corpora, scFMs learn the contextual relationships between genes across millions of cellular contexts [1]. The model learns which genes tend to be co-expressed, how expression patterns correlate with cellular functions, and what gene expression signatures define specific cell types and states.

Architectural Similarities and Differences

Table: Comparison between Large Language Models and Single-Cell Foundation Models

Aspect	Large Language Models (LLMs)	Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs)
Fundamental Unit	Words/tokens	Genes/features with expression values
Sequential Structure	Natural word order	Artificially imposed (e.g., gene ranking)
Primary Architecture	Transformer-based	Transformer-based
Training Objective	Predict masked words	Predict masked gene expressions
Context Learning	Word relationships in sentences	Gene co-expression patterns in cells
Output Representations	Word embeddings, sentence embeddings	Gene embeddings, cell embeddings

Most scFMs utilize some variant of the transformer architecture, which has revolutionized NLP due to its attention mechanisms that allow the model to learn and weight relationships between any pair of input tokens [1]. In scFMs, the attention mechanism 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 [1].

However, a significant challenge in adapting transformers to single-cell data is that gene expression data are not naturally sequential. Unlike words in a sentence, genes in a cell have no inherent ordering [1] [3]. Researchers have developed various strategies to address this, including:

• Ranking genes within each cell by expression levels [1]
• Partitioning genes into bins based on expression values [1]
• Using normalized counts without complex ranking [1]

Key Technical Components of scFMs

Tokenization Strategies for Single-Cell Data

Tokenization converts raw input data into discrete units called tokens that models can process. For scFMs, this involves defining what constitutes a 'token' from single-cell data, typically representing each gene or feature as a token [1]. The process includes several key considerations:

• Gene Identity Representation: Each gene is represented as a token embedding that may combine a gene identifier and its expression value [1]
• Positional Encoding: Special schemes adapted to represent the relative order or rank of each gene in the cell [1]
• Special Tokens: Additional tokens representing cell identity, metadata, or modality information may be prepended [1] [3]

Model Architectures and Pretraining Strategies

Table: Prominent Single-Cell Foundation Models and Their Characteristics

Model Name	Architecture Type	Pretraining Data Scale	Key Features
Geneformer	Transformer-based	30 million cells [4]	Demonstrates transfer learning capabilities
scGPT	GPT-inspired decoder	50+ million cells [5]	Generative pretrained transformer for single-cell data
scBERT	BERT-like encoder	Millions of cells [1]	Bidirectional encoder representations
scPlantLLM	Transformer-based	Plant-specific data [5]	Specialized for plant single-cell data
scFoundation	Transformer-based	100 million cells [5]	Large-scale foundation model

Most scFMs adopt either encoder-based architectures (like BERT) for classification tasks or decoder-based architectures (like GPT) for generation tasks [1]. Pretraining typically employs self-supervised learning objectives, often through predicting masked gene expressions, enabling the model to learn generalizable patterns without requiring labeled data [1].

scFMs in Multi-Omics Data Integration

The Multi-Omics Integration Challenge

Multi-omics integration represents a fundamental challenge and opportunity in single-cell biology. The biological system is complex with many regulatory features including DNA, mRNA, proteins, metabolites, and epigenetic markers, all influencing each other [6]. However, integrating these diverse data types presents significant technical hurdles due to:

• Different data scales and noise ratios across modalities [7]
• Missing data from technological limitations [7]
• Dynamic range limitations in detection methods [6]
• Temporal mismatches between molecular lifetimes [6]

Integration Frameworks and Strategies

scFMs provide powerful frameworks for multi-omics integration through several approaches:

Multi-omics integration with scFMs can be categorized into several strategic approaches:

• Matched (Vertical) Integration: Different omics profiled from the same cell, using the cell itself as an anchor [7]
• Unmatched (Diagonal) Integration: Different omics from different cells, requiring co-embedding in a shared space [7]
• Mosaic Integration: Integrating datasets with various omics combinations through sufficient overlap [7]

Advanced scFMs like scGPT and Geneformer can incorporate additional modalities beyond transcriptomics, including single-cell ATAC sequencing (scATAC-seq), multiome sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and single-cell proteomics [1]. These models often include modality-specific tokens and embedding strategies to represent the diverse data types within a unified architecture.

Experimental Protocols and Applications

Protocol: In Silico Perturbation Prediction with Closed-Loop Fine-Tuning

Purpose: To predict cellular responses to genetic perturbations and iteratively improve prediction accuracy through experimental feedback [4].

Step-by-Step Methodology:

• Model Selection and Initial Fine-tuning

  • Select a pre-trained scFM (e.g., Geneformer-30M-12L) [4]
  • Fine-tune the model using scRNA-seq data from the target cell type and condition
  • Validate classification performance on hold-out test sets (target: >99% accuracy) [4]

• Open-loop In Silico Perturbation (ISP)

  • Perform genome-wide ISP simulations for both gene knockout and overexpression
  • Generate initial predictions of genes that shift cellular states toward desired phenotypes
  • Compare predictions with differential expression analysis as baseline [4]

• Experimental Validation and Closed-loop Refinement

  • Validate top predictions using Perturb-seq or CRISPR screens
  • Incorporate experimental perturbation data into model fine-tuning
  • Even 10-20 perturbation examples can dramatically improve prediction accuracy [4]
  • Iterate until model performance metrics plateau (target: 3x improvement in PPV) [4]

Key Performance Metrics:

• Positive Predictive Value (PPV)
• Negative Predictive Value (NPV)
• Sensitivity and Specificity
• Area Under Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUROC)

Protocol: Cross-Species and Cross-Tissue Cell Annotation

Purpose: To leverage scFMs for accurate cell type annotation across species boundaries and tissue types, particularly for rare or novel cell populations.

Methodology:

• Embedding Extraction

  • Process query single-cell data through scFM to extract cell embeddings
  • Generate reference embeddings from well-annotated atlas data

• Zero-shot Annotation

  • Calculate similarity between query and reference embeddings
  • Transfer annotations based on nearest neighbors in embedding space
  • Use ontology-informed metrics (e.g., LCAD) to evaluate annotation quality [3]

• Fine-tuning for Domain Adaptation

  • For challenging cross-species applications, fine-tune on limited labeled data
  • Specialized models like scPlantLLM can adapt to taxonomic-specific challenges [5]

Table: Key Research Reagents and Computational Resources for scFM Research

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose
Public Data Repositories	CZ CELLxGENE, Human Cell Atlas, GEO, SRA	Provide curated single-cell datasets for model training and validation [1]
Computational Frameworks	BioLLM, scMCs	Standardized APIs for model integration and evaluation [8] [9]
Benchmarking Tools	scGraph-OntoRWR, LCAD metrics	Biologically-informed evaluation of model performance [3]
Specialized scFMs	scPlantLLM, scGPT, Geneformer	Pretrained models for specific applications and species [5]
Multi-omics Integration Tools	MOFA+, GLUE, Seurat v4	Methods for integrating diverse data modalities [7]

Performance Benchmarking and Evaluation

Rigorous evaluation of scFMs requires multiple metrics and benchmarking approaches. Recent comprehensive studies reveal that:

• No single scFM consistently outperforms others across all tasks [3]
• Task-specific strengths vary significantly between models [3]
• Simple baselines can sometimes outperform complex foundation models on specific tasks [3]
• Biological relevance of embeddings requires ontology-informed evaluation metrics [3]

Performance evaluation should span gene-level tasks (tissue specificity prediction, Gene Ontology term prediction) and cell-level tasks (batch integration, cell type annotation, perturbation response prediction) [3]. The introduction of biologically-grounded metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR, which measures the consistency of cell type relationships captured by scFMs with prior biological knowledge, represents a significant advance in evaluation methodology [3].

The field of single-cell foundation models is rapidly evolving, with several emerging trends and future directions:

• Multimodal Integration: Combining transcriptomics with epigenomics, proteomics, and spatial information [5] [10]
• Cross-Species Generalization: Developing models that transfer knowledge across evolutionary boundaries [5]
• Interpretability Advances: Making model predictions and representations more biologically interpretable [1]
• Clinical Translation: Applying scFMs to drug discovery, rare disease research, and therapeutic development [4]

In conclusion, single-cell foundation models represent a powerful paradigm shift in computational biology, leveraging the architectural advances of large language models to decode the complex language of cellular biology. When strategically integrated into multi-omics research frameworks, scFMs offer unprecedented opportunities to uncover novel biological insights and accelerate therapeutic development.

Transformer architectures, originally developed for natural language processing (NLP), are revolutionizing the analysis of single-cell omics data by providing a powerful framework for decoding cellular heterogeneity. These models utilize self-attention mechanisms to capture complex, long-range dependencies in biological data, enabling researchers to interpret the "language of life" encoded in cellular transcriptomes. Foundation models pretrained on millions of single-cell transcriptomes learn fundamental biological principles that generalize across diverse tissues, species, and experimental conditions [1] [11].

In biological applications, the self-attention mechanism allows models to dynamically weight the importance of different genes when making predictions about cellular states. Unlike traditional analytical methods that treat all genes equally, transformers learn which gene interactions are most informative for specific biological contexts, effectively modeling the complex regulatory networks that govern cellular function and identity [1] [12]. This capability is particularly valuable for single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, which exhibits characteristic high dimensionality, technical noise, and sparsity that challenge conventional computational approaches [13].

Tokenization Strategies for Gene Expression Data

Fundamental Concepts and Challenges

Tokenization converts raw gene expression data into structured sequences that transformer models can process. Unlike words in natural language, genes lack inherent sequential ordering, presenting a fundamental challenge for applying transformer architectures to biological data. Researchers have developed multiple strategies to address this limitation, each with distinct advantages for specific analytical tasks [1] [13].

The table below summarizes predominant tokenization approaches used in single-cell foundation models (scFMs):

Table 1: Tokenization Strategies in Single-Cell Foundation Models

Strategy	Method Description	Advantages	Representative Models
Expression Ranking	Genes ordered by expression magnitude within each cell	Deterministic; preserves high-signal features	Geneformer, LangCell [1] [13]
Value Binning	Continuous expression values discretized into bins	Captures expression intensity information	scGPT [1] [13]
Genomic Position	Genes ordered by genomic coordinates	Incorporates spatial genome organization	UCE [13]
Fixed Gene Set	Uses consistent gene vocabulary across all cells	Standardized input representation	scFoundation [13]

Specialized Tokens for Biological Context

Beyond basic gene tokenization, scFMs incorporate specialized tokens to enrich biological context. Modality tokens indicate data types (e.g., scRNA-seq, scATAC-seq) in multimodal integration, while batch tokens help mitigate technical variations between experiments. Cell-level tokens capture global cellular states, enabling the model to distinguish between different biological conditions [1]. Positional encoding schemes adapted from NLP represent the relative order or rank of each gene within the processed cell representation, compensating for the lack of natural sequence in omics data [1].

Architectural Implementations and Model Designs

Transformer Variants for Biological Data

Single-cell foundation models employ diverse transformer architectures optimized for specific analytical tasks. The bidirectional encoder architecture, inspired by BERT, processes all genes simultaneously using bidirectional attention to learn rich contextual representations [1]. In contrast, decoder-based models like scGPT use masked self-attention mechanisms to iteratively predict masked genes conditioned on known expression patterns, enabling generative capabilities [1] [11].

Table 2: Transformer Architectures in Single-Cell Foundation Models

Architecture	Attention Mechanism	Primary Applications	Examples
Encoder-based	Bidirectional	Cell embedding, classification	scBERT, Geneformer [1] [13]
Decoder-based	Masked self-attention	Generative modeling, prediction	scGPT [1] [11]
Encoder-Decoder	Combination	Multi-task learning, translation	Custom models [1]
Bottlenecked	Cross-attention	Interpretability, OOD cells	CellMemory [12]

Innovative Architectural Adaptations

Recent innovations address computational challenges associated with processing large-scale single-cell datasets. CellMemory introduces a bottlenecked transformer inspired by global workspace theory in cognitive neuroscience, using cross-attention between specialist modules and a limited-capacity "memory" to improve interpretability and handle out-of-distribution (OOD) cells [12]. This architecture reduces computational complexity while maintaining performance, achieving superior annotation accuracy for rare cell types compared to conventional transformers [12].

Hybrid architectures combine transformers with other neural network components to capture specific biological patterns. For example, scMonica integrates LSTM networks with transformer layers to model temporal dynamics in developmental processes, while graph transformers incorporate spatial relationships in tissue context [14]. These specialized architectures demonstrate the flexibility of self-attention mechanisms when adapted to distinct biological questions.

Experimental Protocols for Model Application

Protocol 1: Cross-Species Cell Type Annotation

Purpose: Leverage pretrained scFMs to identify cell types across species boundaries without retraining.

Materials:

• Pretrained foundation model (e.g., scGPT, scPlantFormer)
• Reference single-cell dataset with annotated cell types
• Query dataset from target species
• Computational environment with GPU acceleration

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Normalize query dataset using same parameters as model's training data. Select overlapping gene features between reference and query datasets.
• Feature Extraction: Process query cells through pretrained model to obtain latent embeddings (512-3072 dimensions depending on model architecture).
• Similarity Calculation: Compute cosine similarity between query cell embeddings and reference cell type centroids in latent space.
• Annotation Transfer: Assign query cells to reference cell types based on maximum similarity scores exceeding confidence threshold (typically >0.7).
• Validation: Assess annotation quality using marker gene expression and cross-species conservation patterns.

Applications: This protocol enables rapid cell type identification in non-model organisms, with scPlantFormer achieving 92% cross-species accuracy in plant systems [11] [14].

Protocol 2: In Silico Perturbation Prediction

Purpose: Simulate cellular response to genetic or chemical perturbations using generative scFMs.

Materials:

• Generative transformer model (e.g., scGPT)
• Baseline gene expression profile of target cells
• Perturbation specification (gene knockout or drug treatment)
• Differential expression analysis framework

Procedure:

• Baseline Embedding: Encode unperturbed cell state using model's tokenization scheme.
• Perturbation Application: Modify input tokens to represent target gene knockout (zero expression) or drug treatment (modifier tokens).
• Expression Prediction: Generate post-perturbation expression profile through model's forward pass.
• Effect Quantification: Calculate log2 fold changes between predicted and baseline expression values.
• Network Analysis: Identify significantly altered pathways using gene set enrichment analysis on predicted expression changes.

Applications: Predict therapeutic responses and genetic intervention outcomes, reducing experimental costs in drug discovery [11] [14].

Diagram 1: scFM processing workflow for gene expression data.

Data Integration and Multi-Omic Applications

Multimodal Integration Strategies

Transformers excel at integrating diverse data modalities through shared embedding spaces and cross-attention mechanisms. Advanced scFMs incorporate transcriptomic, epigenomic, proteomic, and spatial imaging data within unified architectures [11] [14]. PathOmCLIP aligns histology images with spatial transcriptomics using contrastive learning, while GIST integrates histology with multi-omic profiles for 3D tissue modeling [11]. These approaches enable comprehensive analysis of regulatory networks across biological scales.

Mosaic integration techniques address the challenge of non-overlapping features across datasets. StabMap aligns datasets measuring different gene panels by leveraging shared cellular neighborhoods rather than strict feature overlaps, while TMO-Net implements pan-cancer multi-omic pretraining to capture context-specific regulatory patterns [11]. These methods enhance data completeness and facilitate discovery of novel biological insights.

Handling Technical Variability

A critical challenge in single-cell analysis involves distinguishing biological signals from technical artifacts. Transformer architectures incorporate several strategies to address batch effects and platform-specific biases:

• Batch Token Integration: Special tokens representing experimental batches enable the model to learn and correct for technical variations [1]
• Domain Adaptation: Fine-tuning protocols adapt models to new experimental conditions with minimal data [14]
• Contrastive Learning: Training objectives that maximize similarity between biological replicates while distinguishing technical artifacts [11]

These approaches maintain biological relevance while harmonizing data from diverse sources, enabling large-scale meta-analyses across thousands of experiments [1] [11].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource	Type	Function	Examples
Reference Atlases	Data	Training corpus for foundation models	Human Cell Atlas, Tabula Sapiens [12]
Platform Ecosystems	Software	Unified access to scFMs	BioLLM, CZ CELLxGENE Discover [11] [8]
Pretrained Models	Model Weights	Transfer learning for new datasets	scGPT, Geneformer, scPlantFormer [11] [13]
Benchmarking Suites	Evaluation	Standardized performance assessment	scGraph-OntoRWR, LCAD metrics [13]
Annotation Databases	Knowledge Base	Biological context interpretation	Cell Ontology, Gene Ontology [13]

Diagram 2: Multi-omic data integration via cross-modal attention.

Performance Benchmarking and Interpretation

Evaluation Metrics and Comparative Performance

Rigorous benchmarking reveals distinct performance patterns across scFMs. Comprehensive evaluations using metrics like F1-score, accuracy, and novel biological consistency measures (scGraph-OntoRWR) provide guidance for model selection [13]. The table below summarizes performance characteristics across common tasks:

Table 4: Model Performance Across Biological Tasks

Model	Cell Annotation (F1)	Perturbation Modeling	Cross-Species Generalization	Computational Efficiency
scGPT	0.89-0.94	Excellent	Strong	Moderate [13] [8]
Geneformer	0.85-0.91	Good	Moderate	High [13]
scFoundation	0.87-0.92	Good	Strong	Moderate [13]
CellMemory	0.91-0.95	Not reported	Excellent	High [12]
scBERT	0.79-0.86	Limited	Limited	High [13] [8]

Notably, no single scFM consistently outperforms others across all tasks, emphasizing the importance of task-specific model selection [13]. Simpler machine learning models sometimes outperform foundation models on specific datasets with limited data, suggesting that dataset size and complexity should guide method selection [13].

Biological Insight Extraction

Beyond quantitative metrics, transformer architectures provide unique opportunities for biological discovery through interpretation of attention mechanisms. Attention weights between genes can reveal potential regulatory relationships, with strongly connected gene pairs in attention maps frequently corresponding to validated biological pathways [1] [12]. CellMemory's hierarchical interpretation provides both feature-level importance scores and pattern-level associations through memory slots, offering multi-scale insights into model decision processes [12].

Benchmarking studies demonstrate that scFMs capture biologically meaningful relationships, with model-derived cell type relationships closely matching established biological knowledge encoded in cell ontologies [13]. This biological consistency validates the utility of transformer-derived representations for hypothesis generation and experimental design.

Future Directions and Implementation Guidelines

Emerging Trends and Challenges

The field of biological transformers is rapidly evolving, with several emerging trends shaping future development. Cross-species adaptation frameworks are improving knowledge transfer between model organisms and humans [14]. Lightweight adapters and parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods are making scFMs more accessible for clinical applications with limited data [14]. Additionally, integration of temporal dynamics through specialized architectures is enabling more accurate modeling of developmental trajectories and disease progression [14].

Significant challenges remain in standardization, interpretability, and clinical translation. Ecosystem fragmentation with inconsistent evaluation metrics and limited model interoperability hinders cross-study comparisons [11] [14]. Model interpretability, while improved through attention visualization, still requires specialized expertise to connect computational findings with mechanistic biology [13] [14].

Practical Implementation Recommendations

For researchers implementing transformer approaches for gene expression data, we recommend:

• Model Selection: Choose architecture based on primary task - encoder models for classification, decoder models for generation, and hybrid designs for multi-task applications [1] [13]

• Data Preprocessing: Implement rigorous quality control and normalization consistent with model pretraining protocols [1] [13]

• Validation Strategy: Combine quantitative metrics with biological validation using known pathway associations and experimental follow-up [13] [12]

• Computational Resources: Ensure adequate GPU memory for transformer inference, with model sizes typically ranging from 40-650 million parameters [13]

As transformer architectures continue to evolve, their ability to decode the complex language of gene expression will play an increasingly central role in bridging single-cell multi-omics with mechanistic biology and precision medicine.

The emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a paradigm shift in computational biology, enabling the integrated analysis of millions of cells across diverse tissues, species, and experimental conditions [1]. These models, predominantly built on transformer architectures, rely on a critical preprocessing step: tokenization. Tokenization refers to the process of converting raw, unstructured biological data—such as gene expression values, epigenetic features, or DNA sequences—into discrete, numerical units (tokens) that can be processed by deep learning models [1] [15]. In scFMs, individual cells are treated analogously to sentences, while genes, genomic features, or their values become the words or tokens that collectively describe each cell's state [1]. The performance and generalization capability of scFMs across challenging transfer learning settings, including cross-tissue, cross-species, and spatial gene-panel shifts, depend critically on how cells are tokenized into model inputs [16]. Consequently, selecting an appropriate tokenization strategy is not merely a preprocessing detail but a fundamental design choice that significantly influences model performance, interpretability, and biological relevance.

Foundational Tokenization Strategies for Omics Data

Core Concepts and Challenges

Tokenization strategies for omics data must address several unique challenges that distinguish biological sequences from natural language. Unlike human language, biological sequences are non-sequential, lack delimiters or punctuation, and often span lengths far beyond typical text corpora [15]. Furthermore, gene expression data derived from single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) does not possess an inherent ordering of genes, creating a fundamental challenge for transformer architectures that typically require sequenced input [1]. Effective tokenization must therefore impose meaningful structure while preserving biological information. A key consideration is the token granularity, which ranges from single nucleotides to groups of genes, with each level capturing different biological features [15] [17]. Additionally, the representation of numerical values, such as gene expression levels, requires specialized encoding approaches that maintain quantitative relationships [16].

Classification of Tokenization Approaches

Tokenization methods for omics data can be systematically categorized based on their input type and biological scope. The table below summarizes the predominant strategies employed in scFMs and genomic deep learning:

Table 1: Classification of Tokenization Strategies for Omics Data

Tokenization Strategy	Biological Scope	Input Features	Model Examples	Advantages	Limitations
Nucleotide-based	DNA/RNA sequences	Single nucleotides or non-overlapping k-mers	HyenaDNA, Mamba	Preserves complete sequence information; enables novel sequence generation	Computational intensity; loses higher-order motifs without sufficient context [15]
Amino Acid-based	Protein sequences	Individual amino acids or short peptides	ESM, ProtTrans	Direct representation of protein primary structure	May miss structural contexts [15] [18]
K-mer Tokenization	Genomic sequences	Overlapping nucleotide k-mers	DNABERT, Nucleotide Transformer	Captures short-range motifs and patterns; balances sequence length	Vocabulary size grows exponentially with k; may split functional domains [15]
Gene-based Tokenization	Single-cell transcriptomics	Individual genes with expression values	scBERT, Geneformer	Leverages biological prior knowledge; reduces dimensionality	Dependent on gene annotation quality [1] [16]
Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE)	Genomic & transcriptomic	Adaptive compression based on sequence frequency	DNABERT-2	Efficiently handles long sequences; data-driven vocabulary creation	Learned tokens may not align with biological motifs [15]

Advanced Tokenization Frameworks for Single-Cell Multi-Omics Integration

Modular Tokenization Frameworks

Recent research has established that tokenization choices show minimal impact on in-distribution performance but become decisive under distribution shifts, such as cross-species or cross-tissue generalization [16]. To address this challenge, modular frameworks like Heimdall have been developed to systematically evaluate tokenization strategies in scFMs. Heimdall decomposes tokenization into three modular components: a gene identity encoder (FG), an expression encoder (FE), and a "cell sentence" constructor (FC) with submodules (order, sequence, and reduce) that enable fine-grained control and attribution [16]. This modular approach allows researchers to recombine existing strategies to enhance generalization, with FG and ordering strategies driving the largest performance gains under distribution shift, while F_E provides additional improvements [16].

Expression Value Encoding Strategies

A critical aspect of tokenization for scRNA-seq data is how to represent gene expression values. Unlike natural language, where words have categorical identities, gene tokens incorporate both identity and quantitative expression levels. Common expression encoding strategies include:

• Bin-based Encoding: Partitioning expression values into discrete bins or quantiles, then using these rankings to determine token identity or position [1].
• Rank-based Encoding: Ordering genes within each cell by their expression levels and feeding the ordered list of top genes as the "sentence" [1] [16].
• Value-Integration Approaches: Combining gene identity embeddings with continuous expression values through element-wise multiplication or concatenation before feeding to transformer layers [16].
• Normalized Counts: Some models report no clear advantages for complex ranking strategies and simply use normalized counts as input [1].

Multi-Modal Tokenization Strategies

For truly integrative multi-omics analysis, scFMs must incorporate diverse data types beyond transcriptomics, including chromatin accessibility (scATAC-seq), DNA methylation, spatial coordinates, and proteomics [1] [7]. Advanced tokenization approaches for multi-omics integration include:

• Special Modality Tokens: Prepending tokens indicating the data modality (e.g., [ATAC], [RNA], [PROTEIN]) to distinguish between feature types [1] [19].
• Gene Metadata Incorporation: Enriching token representations with additional biological context such as gene ontology terms, chromosome location, or functional annotations [1].
• Batch Token Integration: Incorporating batch information as special tokens to account for technical variations across experiments, though several models report robustness to batch effects without explicit batch tokens [1].

Table 2: Multi-Omics Integration Tools and Their Tokenization Capacities

Tool Name	Year	Methodology	Integration Capacity	Tokenization Approach
Seurat v5	2022	Bridge integration	mRNA, chromatin accessibility, DNA methylation, protein	Gene-based with multimodal anchoring [7]
GLUE	2022	Graph variational autoencoders	Chromatin accessibility, DNA methylation, mRNA	Uses prior biological knowledge to link omic data [7]
MultiVI	2022	Probabilistic modeling	mRNA, chromatin accessibility	Mosaic integration of shared and unique features [7]
Cobolt	2021	Multimodal variational autoencoder	mRNA, chromatin accessibility	Learns joint representation across modalities [7]
SCHEMA	2019	Metric learning-based method	Chromatin accessibility, mRNA, proteins, immunoprofiling, spatial coordinates	Unified embedding space for diverse data types [7]

Experimental Protocols for Tokenization Strategy Evaluation

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Tokenization Strategies Under Distribution Shift

Purpose: To systematically evaluate tokenization strategies for cross-species and cross-tissue generalization in scFMs.

Materials:

• Hardware: Configuration with ≥16 GB RAM and multi-core processor (e.g., Intel Core i7-12700F) [20]
• Software: Heimdall framework (https://github.com/gnnumsli/EGP-Hybrid-ML) [16]
• Datasets: Annotated single-cell datasets from public repositories (CZ CELLxGENE, Human Cell Atlas, PanglaoDB) representing multiple tissues and species [1]

Methodology:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Download datasets from CZ CELLxGENE, containing over 100 million unique cells standardized for analysis [1].
  • Filter cells and genes using quality control metrics (mitochondrial percentage, gene counts).
  • Apply standard normalization and log-transformation to expression matrices.

• Modular Tokenization Configuration:

  • Implement gene identity encoder (F_G) using either categorical gene identifiers or pretrained gene embeddings.
  • Configure expression encoder (F_E) testing bin-based, rank-based, and value-integration approaches.
  • Design "cell sentence" constructor (F_C) evaluating different ordering strategies (expression rank, genomic position, random).

• Model Training & Evaluation:

  • Train transformer models from scratch with identical architectures but varying tokenization strategies.
  • Evaluate performance on in-distribution data (same tissue/species as training).
  • Assess generalization on out-of-distribution data (unseen tissues or species).
  • Use cell type annotation accuracy as primary metric, with attention mechanism analysis to interpret feature importance.

Expected Outcomes: This protocol typically reveals that tokenization choices have minimal impact on in-distribution performance but become critical under distribution shift, with F_G and ordering strategy driving the largest generalization improvements [16].

Protocol 2: Multi-Omics Tokenization for Vertical Integration

Purpose: To develop and validate tokenization strategies for matched multi-omics data from the same single cells.

Materials:

• Reference materials: Quartet multi-omics reference material suites (DNA, RNA, protein, metabolites) [21]
• Platforms: Multi-omics technologies including scRNA-seq, scATAC-seq, and proteomics platforms
• Tools: Multi-omics integration tools (Seurat v5, GLUE, MultiVI) [7]

Methodology:

• Data Generation:
  • Profile Quartet reference materials across multiple omics platforms using standardized protocols.
  • Generate matched multi-omics data from the same set of cells wherever possible.

• Tokenization Scheme Design:

  • Implement special modality tokens ([RNA], [ATAC], [PROTEIN]) to distinguish feature types.
  • Incorporate positional encoding based on genomic coordinates for epigenetic features.
  • For sparse epigenomic data (e.g., scATAC-seq), implement binning strategies to create dense tokens.

• Integration and Validation:

  • Apply vertical integration methods to combine different omics modalities using the cell as an anchor [7].
  • Validate integration quality using built-in truths from the Quartet design, including Mendelian relationships and information flow from DNA to RNA to protein [21].
  • Assess cluster separation accuracy for the four Quartet samples (D5, D6, F7, M8) and three genetically driven clusters (daughters, father, mother).

Expected Outcomes: Successful multi-omics tokenization should enable correct classification of Quartet samples and recapitulation of central dogma relationships, with ratio-based profiling approaches demonstrating superior reproducibility compared to absolute quantification [21].

Visualization of Tokenization Workflows

Single-Cell Multi-Omics Tokenization Pipeline

Single-Cell Multi-Omics Tokenization and Processing Workflow

Modular Tokenization Framework Architecture

Modular Architecture for Tokenization Strategy Evaluation

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Tokenization Experiments

Resource Name	Type	Function in Tokenization Research	Access Information
Quartet Reference Materials	Biological Reference Standards	Provides multi-omics ground truth with built-in familial relationships for validation	https://chinese-quartet.org/ [21]
Heimdall Framework	Computational Toolkit	Enables systematic evaluation of tokenization strategies across modular components	Open-source toolkit (reference [16])
CZ CELLxGENE	Data Repository	Provides unified access to annotated single-cell datasets with >100 million cells for pretraining	https://cellxgene.cziscience.com/ [1]
DEG (Database of Essential Genes)	Specialized Database	Source of essential and non-essential genes for evaluating gene importance in tokenization	http://tubic.tju.edu.cn/deg/ [20]
TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas)	Multi-omics Data	Comprehensive cancer genomics dataset for validating multi-omics tokenization approaches	https://cancergenome.nih.gov/ [19]
EGP Hybrid-ML	Reference Implementation	Example implementation of hybrid machine learning model with attention mechanism for gene prediction	https://github.com/gnnumsli/EGP-Hybrid-ML [20]

Tokenization represents a critical frontier in the development of effective single-cell foundation models for multi-omics integration. As this field advances, several emerging trends are shaping its future trajectory: the development of biologically meaningful tokenization that aligns with functional motifs and domains rather than arbitrary sequence segments [17]; dynamic tokenization strategies that adapt to specific biological questions and data types; and context-aware approaches that leverage established bioinformatics tools to provide high-level structured context, enabling models to focus on reasoning rather than low-level sequence interpretation [17]. Furthermore, as spatial transcriptomics and multi-omics technologies mature, tokenization schemes must evolve to incorporate spatial relationships and temporal dynamics. The paradigm is shifting from treating scFMs as direct sequence interpreters to positioning them as powerful reasoning engines over expert-curated biological knowledge [17]. By adopting systematic, modular approaches to tokenization strategy development and evaluation, researchers can unlock the full potential of scFMs to transform our understanding of cellular biology and accelerate therapeutic discovery.

Self-supervised learning (SSL) has emerged as a transformative approach for analyzing single-cell genomics data, enabling researchers to extract meaningful biological representations from vast, unlabeled datasets. By leveraging large-scale single-cell corpora, SSL pretraining provides a powerful mechanism to overcome challenges such as data sparsity, technical noise, and batch effects that commonly plague single-cell technologies. This paradigm is particularly crucial for single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs), which aim to learn universal representations transferable across diverse biological contexts and downstream tasks.

The integration of multi-omics data represents a grand challenge in single-cell genomics, as it requires harmonizing measurements from different molecular layers (transcriptomics, epigenomics, proteomics) with distinct statistical characteristics. SSL pretraining on massive single-cell corpora provides a viable pathway toward this integration by learning joint representations that capture underlying biological signals while mitigating technical variations. This Application Note provides a comprehensive framework for implementing SSL pretraining paradigms with a specific focus on multi-omics data integration using scFMs.

SSL Framework for Single-Cell Genomics

Core Architectural Components

Self-supervised learning for single-cell data typically employs a two-stage framework consisting of pretraining (pretext task) and optional fine-tuning. The pretraining phase learns rich data representations from unlabeled data, producing what is termed "zero-shot SSL" models. The fine-tuning phase further adapts these models to specific downstream tasks such as cell-type annotation or multi-omics integration [22].

The framework incorporates several core components:

• Model Architecture: Fully connected autoencoder networks are commonly used as base architectures due to their prevalent application in single-cell genomics tasks and their ability to capture underlying biological variations without introducing complex architectural biases [22].

• Pretext Tasks: SSL employs specific pretext tasks to learn from unlabeled data. The dominant approaches include:

  • Masked Autoencoders: Randomly mask portions of input features (e.g., gene expressions) and train the model to reconstruct them [22].
  • Contrastive Learning: Learn representations by contrasting positive pairs (similar cells) against negative pairs (dissimilar cells) using methods like BYOL (Bootstrap Your Own Latent) and Barlow Twins [22] [23].

• Feature Spaces: Models can be trained on all protein-encoding genes (approximately 19,000 in human) to maximize generalizability or on selected highly variable genes (HVGs) to focus on biologically informative features [22] [13].

Masking Strategies for Single-Cell Data

Different masking strategies introduce varying levels of biological inductive bias into the pretraining process. The table below summarizes key masking approaches and their characteristics:

Table 1: Masking Strategies for SSL Pretraining in Single-Cell Genomics

Strategy	Description	Biological Prior	Use Cases
Random Masking	Randomly selects genes for masking	Minimal	General-purpose representation learning
Gene Programme (GP) Masking	Masks genes based on functional groupings	Moderate	Learning coordinated biological programs
Isolated GP-to-GP Masking	Masks one gene program to predict another	High	Modeling regulatory relationships
GP-to-Transcription Factor Masking	Masks gene programs to predict TF expression	High	Inferring regulatory networks

Notably, empirical analyses have demonstrated that masked autoencoders generally outperform contrastive methods in single-cell genomics, diverging from trends observed in computer vision applications [22]. Random masking has emerged as particularly effective across multiple tasks, surprisingly surpassing more complex domain-specific augmentations [23].

Performance Benchmarking

Evaluation Metrics and Tasks

SSL methods for single-cell data are evaluated across multiple downstream tasks using standardized metrics. The table below summarizes the key evaluation dimensions:

Table 2: Evaluation Framework for SSL in Single-Cell Genomics

Task Category	Specific Tasks	Key Metrics
Cell-level Analysis	Cell type annotation, Batch correction	ARI, NMI, Macro F1, Micro F1, kBET, ASW, LISI
Gene-level Analysis	Gene expression reconstruction, Gene function prediction	Weighted explained variance, Gene set enrichment
Multi-omics Integration	Cross-modality prediction, Data integration	Integration accuracy, Missing modality imputation accuracy

Evaluation should encompass both supervised metrics (e.g., cell-type classification accuracy) and unsupervised metrics (e.g., batch mixing and biological conservation) to provide a comprehensive assessment of model performance [13] [24].

Comparative Performance

Recent benchmarking studies have revealed task-specific performance patterns across SSL methods:

• Batch Correction: Specialized single-cell frameworks (scVI, CLAIRE) and the fine-tuned scGPT foundation model excel at uni-modal batch correction, effectively removing technical variations while preserving biological signals [23] [24].

• Cell Type Annotation: Generic SSL methods such as VICReg and SimCLR demonstrate superior performance in cell typing tasks, particularly in zero-shot settings where models must generalize to unseen cell types [23].

• Multi-omics Integration: Current methods show varying success in integrating different data modalities. While no single method consistently outperforms others across all tasks, models like scGPT and scMFG show promise for specific integration scenarios [11] [25].

Notably, SSL pretraining on auxiliary data (large-scale single-cell corpora) consistently boosts performance on downstream tasks. For example, pretraining on the scTab dataset (over 20 million cells) improved macro F1 scores for cell-type prediction from 0.701 to 0.747 in PBMC datasets and from 0.272 to 0.309 in the Tabula Sapiens atlas [22].

Experimental Protocols

SSL Pretraining Protocol for Single-Cell Data

Objective: Learn generalizable representations from large-scale single-cell data that can be transferred to various downstream tasks.

Materials:

• Computing resources: High-performance computing cluster with GPU acceleration (recommended minimum 16GB GPU memory)
• Software: Python 3.8+, PyTorch or TensorFlow, single-cell analysis libraries (Scanpy, Scanorama)
• Data: Large-scale single-cell corpora (e.g., CELLxGENE Census, Human Cell Atlas)

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Quality control: Filter cells with mitochondrial gene percentage >20% and genes expressed in <10 cells
  • Normalization: Apply library size normalization (e.g., 10,000 reads per cell) and log transformation
  • Feature selection: Select 3,000-5,000 highly variable genes using Seurat v3 or Scanpy workflow
  • Batch information: Collect batch metadata (donor, protocol, laboratory) for evaluation

• Model Configuration:

  • Architecture: Implement fully connected autoencoder with 4-6 encoder layers and symmetric decoder
  • Hidden dimensions: Use 512-1024 units per layer with dropout (rate=0.1)
  • Masking: Apply random masking with 15-30% masking probability
  • Optimization: Use AdamW optimizer with learning rate 1e-4 and weight decay 1e-5

• Training Regimen:

  • Pretraining: Train for 100-200 epochs with batch size 128-256
  • Validation: Monitor reconstruction loss on held-out validation set
  • Early stopping: Patience of 10-20 epochs based on validation performance

• Evaluation:

  • Zero-shot analysis: Extract embeddings and assess using kNN classification
  • Transfer learning: Fine-tune on downstream tasks with reduced learning rate (1e-5)

Troubleshooting:

• If model fails to converge, reduce learning rate or increase masking probability
• If overfitting occurs, increase dropout rate or apply stronger regularization
• For computational constraints, reduce hidden dimensions or use stochastic batches

Multi-Omics Integration Protocol

Objective: Integrate paired transcriptomic and epigenomic data to learn joint representations that capture complementary biological information.

Materials:

• Data: Paired single-cell multi-omics data (e.g., from CITE-seq, SHARE-seq, 10x Multiome)
• Software: Specialized integration tools (scMFG, scFPN, MOFA+)

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Process each modality separately: scRNA-seq (normalization, HVG selection) and scATAC-seq (binarization, peak calling)
  • Feature selection: Select 3,000 HVGs for RNA and 10,000 accessible peaks for ATAC

• Integration Framework:

  • Method selection: Choose appropriate integration method based on data characteristics
  • For feature-rich data: Use matrix factorization approaches (MOFA+)
  • For complex nonlinear relationships: Use deep learning approaches (scFPN, scMFG)

• Model Training:

  • Modality-specific encoders: Train separate encoders for each data type
  • Integration layer: Fuse representations using feature pyramid network or latent alignment
  • Optimization: Jointly train with modality-specific and integration losses

• Validation:

  • Cluster evaluation: Assess integrated clusters using ARI, NMI with ground truth labels
  • Biological conservation: Evaluate preservation of cell-type specific markers
  • Batch mixing: Quantify batch integration using LISI or kBET metrics

Visualization Framework

SSL Pretraining Workflow for Single-Cell Data

Diagram 1: SSL pretraining workflow for single-cell data, showing the progression from raw data to downstream applications.

Multi-Omics Integration Architecture

Diagram 2: Multi-omics integration architecture showing how different data modalities are processed and integrated.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Resources for SSL in Single-Cell Multi-Omics Research

Category	Resource	Specification	Application
Data Resources	CELLxGENE Census	>20M cells, cross-tissue	Large-scale pretraining corpus
	Human Cell Atlas	Comprehensive reference	Biological ground truth
	SPDB	Single-cell proteomic database	Multi-omics benchmarking
Computational Tools	scGPT	50M parameters, transformer	Foundation model training
	scVI	Variational autoencoder	Probabilistic modeling
	Scanpy	Python toolkit	Data preprocessing & analysis
	MOFA+	Statistical framework	Multi-omics integration
Benchmarking Frameworks	scSSL-Bench	19 SSL methods, 9 datasets	Performance evaluation
	scIB	14 metrics, multiple tasks	Integration quality assessment
Implementation Libraries	PyTorch	Deep learning framework	Model development
	JAX	Accelerated computing	High-performance training

Self-supervised learning pretraining on massive single-cell corpora represents a paradigm shift in computational biology, enabling the development of foundation models that capture universal biological principles. The protocols and frameworks outlined in this Application Note provide researchers with practical guidance for implementing these approaches, with particular emphasis on multi-omics integration challenges.

As the field evolves, key considerations include the nuanced role of SSL in transfer learning scenarios, the importance of scalable architectures, and the need for biologically meaningful evaluation metrics. By adopting standardized benchmarking practices and robust experimental protocols, researchers can leverage SSL to advance our understanding of cellular heterogeneity and function across diverse biological contexts and disease states.

Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represent a transformative advancement in computational biology, leveraging large-scale deep learning to interpret complex single-cell omics data. These models are pretrained on vast datasets through self-supervised learning, enabling exceptional adaptability across diverse downstream tasks without task-specific architectural changes [1]. The development of scFMs addresses a critical need in single-cell genomics for unified frameworks capable of integrating and comprehensively analyzing rapidly expanding data repositories, which now encompass hundreds of millions of cells across diverse tissues, species, and experimental conditions [1] [11].

These models fundamentally transform how researchers approach cellular heterogeneity and complex regulatory networks by treating cells as sentences and genes as words, allowing artificial intelligence to decipher the "language" of cellular function and organization [1]. The transformer architecture, revolutionized in natural language processing, serves as the computational backbone for most scFMs, utilizing attention mechanisms to model complex dependencies between genes within individual cells [1] [26]. This architectural foundation enables scFMs to capture intricate biological patterns that traditional analytical methods often miss.

This article provides a comprehensive technical comparison of four pivotal scFM architectures—scGPT, scBERT, Nicheformer, and scPlantFormer—focusing on their distinctive approaches to multi-omics data integration. We examine their underlying architectures, training methodologies, and performance across specialized tasks, providing researchers with practical protocols for implementation and a clear framework for selecting appropriate models based on specific research objectives in drug development and basic biology.

Comparative Analysis of Model Architectures

The four models represent diverse implementations of transformer-based architectures adapted for single-cell data, each with unique strengths for specific biological applications. scGPT employs a decoder-style architecture inspired by the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT), using a unidirectional masked self-attention mechanism that iteratively predicts masked genes conditioned on known genes [1]. This approach excels at generative tasks and perturbation modeling. In contrast, scBERT utilizes a BERT-like encoder architecture with bidirectional attention mechanisms, allowing the model to learn from all genes in a cell simultaneously [1] [27]. This architecture demonstrates particular strength in classification tasks such as cell type annotation.

Nicheformer introduces spatial awareness to foundation models through a transformer encoder architecture specifically designed to integrate both dissociated single-cell and spatial transcriptomics data [26] [28]. Its key innovation lies in incorporating contextual tokens for species, modality, and technology, enabling the model to learn distinct characteristics of each data type. scPlantFormer represents a specialized adaptation for plant systems, integrating phylogenetic constraints into its attention mechanism to achieve exceptional cross-species annotation accuracy [11].

Table 1: Core Architectural Specifications of Single-Cell Foundation Models

Model	Architecture Type	Pretraining Scale	Embedding Dimension	Key Specialization
scGPT	GPT-like Decoder	33+ million human cells [11]	512-1024 [1]	Multi-omic integration, perturbation prediction
scBERT	BERT-like Encoder	Millions of cells [27]	200 [27]	Cell type annotation
Nicheformer	Transformer Encoder	110+ million cells (57M dissociated + 53M spatial) [26]	512 [26]	Spatial context prediction
scPlantFormer	Transformer with Phylogenetic Constraints	1 million Arabidopsis thaliana cells [11]	Not specified	Cross-species plant biology

Tokenization Strategies and Input Representation

Tokenization—the process of converting raw gene expression data into model-readable tokens—varies significantly across scFMs and fundamentally influences their capabilities. Most models face the challenge that gene expression data lacks natural sequencing, unlike words in sentences [1]. A predominant strategy ranks genes within each cell by expression levels, feeding the ordered list of top genes as a "sentence" to the model [1] [26].

scGPT and Nicheformer both employ rank-based tokenization, where genes are ordered by expression magnitude relative to dataset-specific means [1] [26]. Nicheformer extends this approach by computing technology-specific nonzero mean vectors to account for systematic biases between spatial and dissociated assays [26]. scBERT utilizes a binning strategy, partitioning gene expression values into discrete bins (default: 7 bins) which are then used as token inputs [27]. Contextual enrichment through special tokens represents another key differentiator; Nicheformer incorporates modality, species, and technology tokens [26], while scGPT can prepend tokens representing cell identity and metadata [1].

Multimodal Integration Capabilities

A critical advantage of scFMs lies in their ability to integrate multiple data modalities, though each model exhibits distinct strengths and approaches. scGPT demonstrates robust multi-omic integration capabilities, handling transcriptomic, epigenomic, and proteomic data through modality-specific tokens and embedding strategies [1] [11]. Nicheformer specializes in spatial-transcriptomic integration, creating a joint representation space that enables transfer of spatial context to dissociated single-cell data [26] [28]. This capability allows researchers to infer spatial organization for existing scRNA-seq datasets without additional experiments.

scPlantFormer addresses cross-species integration through phylogenetic constraints in its attention mechanism, enabling effective knowledge transfer between plant species with conserved biological processes [11]. scBERT primarily focuses on transcriptomic data but can incorporate gene metadata such as ontological information to enhance biological context [1].

Table 2: Performance Comparison Across Key Biological Tasks

Model	Cell Type Annotation	Spatial Prediction	Perturbation Modeling	Cross-Species Transfer	Batch Integration
scGPT	High accuracy (99.5% F1-score in retina) [29]	Limited	Excellent [1] [11]	Moderate	Variable zero-shot [30]
scBERT	Primary strength [27]	Not demonstrated	Limited	Not emphasized	Not reported
Nicheformer	Moderate with spatial context	State-of-the-art [26] [28]	Limited	Human-Mouse [26]	Effective for technologies
scPlantFormer	92% cross-species accuracy [11]	Not demonstrated	Not reported	Excellent in plants [11]	Not reported

Practical Implementation Protocols

scGPT Fine-Tuning Protocol for Retinal Cell Annotation

The following end-to-end protocol demonstrates how to fine-tune scGPT for specialized cell type annotation, achieving 99.5% F1-score for retinal cell identification [29]:

Data Preprocessing Requirements:

• Normalize raw count data using sc.pp.normalize_total and sc.pp.log1p from Scanpy
• Implement quality control to remove low-quality cells and genes
• Format expression matrices with genes as columns and cells as rows
• For multi-omic integration: include modality-specific tokens and normalization

Fine-Tuning Procedure:

• Load pretrained scGPT model (available through BioLLM benchmarking framework) [11]
• Configure model architecture parameters: 6 transformer layers, 8 attention heads, 512 embedding dimensions
• Set training hyperparameters: batch size 64, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay 1e-5
• Train for 20-50 epochs with early stopping based on validation loss
• Validate using k-fold cross-validation with minimum 5 folds

Inference and Evaluation:

• Generate cell embeddings through forward pass of fine-tuned model
• Apply clustering algorithms (Leiden, Louvain) to identify cell populations
• Compare predicted labels with ground truth using F1-score, accuracy, and confusion matrices
• Visualize results using UMAP projection with cell type annotations

Nicheformer Spatial Context Transfer Protocol

Nicheformer enables prediction of spatial context for dissociated single-cell data through these key steps:

SpatialCorpus-110M Pretraining Foundation:

• Curate 57 million dissociated and 53 million spatially resolved cells [26]
• Harmonize human and mouse data using orthologous gene mapping (20,310 gene tokens) [26]
• Implement technology-specific normalization for MERFISH, Xenium, CosMx, and ISS platforms [26]

Spatial Transfer Implementation:

• Generate Nicheformer embeddings for target dissociated cells
• Apply linear probing or fine-tuning with spatial reference datasets
• Predict spatial labels including:
  • Human-annotated tissue niches
  • Microenvironment compositions
  • Local cellular density profiles
• Validate predictions against held-out spatial transcriptomics data

Interpretation and Analysis:

• Identify spatially variable genes through attention weight analysis
• Reconstruct cellular neighborhood relationships
• Infer cell-cell communication patterns within predicted niches
• Map disease-specific spatial alterations (e.g., tumor microenvironments)

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Critical Computational Tools and Data Resources for scFM Implementation

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Access Information
CZ CELLxGENE	Data Repository	Unified access to 100M+ annotated single-cells [1]	https://cellxgene.cziscience.com/
SpatialCorpus-110M	Training Data	110M dissociated and spatial cells for Nicheformer [26]	Custom compilation [26]
BioLLM	Benchmarking Framework	Universal interface for evaluating 15+ foundation models [11]	Open-source platform
scGPT Package	Software	End-to-end fine-tuning and inference pipeline [29]	GitHub: RCHENLAB/scGPTfineTuneprotocol
Nicheformer Package	Software	Spatial context prediction implementation [31]	GitHub: theislab/nicheformer
scBERT Model	Software	BERT-based cell type annotation [27]	GitHub: TencentAILabHealthcare/scBERT

Performance Benchmarking and Limitations

Quantitative Performance Across Tasks

Recent benchmarking studies reveal critical performance patterns across the four model architectures. scGPT demonstrates exceptional capability in zero-shot cell type annotation and perturbation response prediction when pretrained on 33+ million human cells [11]. In specialized applications, fine-tuned scGPT achieves remarkable 99.5% F1-score for retinal cell annotation [29]. However, its zero-shot performance varies significantly across datasets, sometimes underperforming simpler methods like highly variable genes (HVG) selection combined with Harmony or scVI integration [30].

Nicheformer establishes new standards for spatially-aware tasks, consistently outperforming models trained exclusively on dissociated data [26]. In spatial composition prediction and niche identification, Nicheformer achieves 15-30% improvement over spatial-agnostic models [26] [28]. scPlantFormer demonstrates groundbreaking 92% accuracy in cross-species cell type annotation within plant systems, addressing a critical challenge in comparative genomics [11]. scBERT maintains strong performance in dedicated cell type annotation tasks, though its applications to multimodal data remain less explored [27].

Critical Limitations and Considerations

Despite their promise, scFMs face significant challenges that researchers must consider when selecting and implementing these tools:

Zero-Shot Performance Gaps: Both scGPT and Geneformer demonstrate unreliable zero-shot performance in some evaluations, being outperformed by simpler methods like HVG selection combined with established integration tools [30]. This limitation is particularly problematic for discovery settings where labeled data for fine-tuning is unavailable [30].

Data Requirements and Computational Costs: Pretraining scFMs requires massive computational resources and carefully curated data corpora. Inconsistent data quality, batch effects, and technical variability across single-cell datasets introduce additional challenges for model robustness [1] [30]. Nicheformer's spatial capabilities specifically require technology-specific normalization to address platform-specific biases [26].

Interpretability Challenges: The biological relevance of latent embeddings and model representations remains nontrivial to interpret [1]. While attention mechanisms theoretically allow identification of important gene-gene interactions, extracting biologically meaningful insights requires additional validation and specialized interpretation tools.

Spatial Limitations: Even Nicheformer, despite its spatial capabilities, cannot fully reconstruct the complex three-dimensional architecture of native tissue environments. Future "tissue foundation models" incorporating physical relationships between cells represent the next frontier [28].

The comparative analysis of scGPT, scBERT, Nicheformer, and scPlantFormer reveals a rapidly evolving landscape where architectural specialization enables distinct biological applications. scGPT excels as a general-purpose model with strong multi-omic integration capabilities, particularly suited for perturbation modeling and cell type annotation. scBERT provides a focused solution for high-accuracy cell classification tasks. Nicheformer breaks new ground in spatial biology, enabling researchers to infer tissue context for existing single-cell datasets. scPlantFormer addresses the critical need for specialized models in non-mammalian systems.

For drug development professionals, these models offer increasingly sophisticated tools for understanding cellular mechanisms in disease contexts, particularly in complex tissue microenvironments like tumors. The emerging capability to predict how cells respond to perturbations and how they organize spatially provides valuable insights for target identification and therapeutic development.

Future development will likely focus on several key areas: (1) improved zero-shot performance through better pretraining objectives, (2) enhanced multimodal integration spanning transcriptomics, epigenomics, proteomics, and imaging, (3) incorporation of temporal dynamics for developmental and disease progression modeling, and (4) more interpretable architectures that provide biologically meaningful insights into regulatory mechanisms [1] [11] [28]. As these models mature, they will increasingly serve as foundational components in the emerging paradigm of virtual cell and tissue modeling, potentially transforming how we study health and disease and accelerating the development of novel therapeutics.

Practical Implementation: scFM Workflows for Multi-Omics Integration and Analysis

The advent of single-cell multi-omics technologies has revolutionized cellular analysis, enabling the comprehensive exploration of cellular heterogeneity, developmental trajectories, and disease mechanisms at unprecedented resolution. Modern biological datasets often comprise multiple modalities—including transcriptomic, epigenomic, proteomic, and spatial imaging data—each providing complementary insights into cellular states and functions. However, these datasets present significant computational challenges due to their high dimensionality, technical noise, and inherent biological complexity. Multimodal integration frameworks address these challenges by harmonizing disparate data types to construct unified representations of cellular systems, thereby facilitating the discovery of multilayered regulatory networks across biological scales.

Foundation models, originally developed for natural language processing, are now driving transformative approaches to high-dimensional, multimodal single-cell data analysis. Unlike traditional analytical pipelines designed for single-modality data, these advanced computational architectures utilize self-supervised pretraining objectives—including masked gene modeling, contrastive learning, and multimodal alignment—to capture hierarchical biological patterns across diverse data types. The integration of multimodal data has become a cornerstone of next-generation single-cell analysis, fueled by the convergence of multiple molecular profiling technologies that together provide a more comprehensive understanding of cellular function and regulation.

Core Computational Frameworks and Architectures

Contrastive Learning Approaches

Contrastive learning frameworks have emerged as powerful tools for aligning disparate data modalities into a unified embedding space. The CellWhisperer framework implements a multimodal artificial intelligence that connects transcriptomes and their textual annotations through contrastive learning on approximately 1 million RNA sequencing profiles with AI-curated descriptions [32]. This approach adapts the Contrastive Language-Image Pretraining (CLIP) architecture, processing transcriptomes with the Geneformer model for gene expression and textual annotations with the BioBERT model for biomedical text [32]. The resulting vectors are mapped into a 2,048-dimensional multimodal embedding space using conventional feed-forward neural network layers, trained to place modality-specific embeddings in close proximity within the joint embedding space.

Similarly, the scPairing framework utilizes a CLIP-inspired approach to embed different modalities from the same single cells onto a common embedding space [33]. This deep learning model enables the integration and generation of novel multiomics data through bridge integration, a method that uses an existing multiomics bridge to link unimodal datasets. Through extensive benchmarking, scPairing demonstrates the capacity to construct an embedding space that fully captures both coarse and fine biological structures, facilitating the generation of new multiomics data from retina, immune, and renal cells [33].

Transformer-Based Foundation Models

Transformer-based architectures have demonstrated remarkable success in multimodal single-cell analysis due to their ability to capture complex relationships across diverse data types. The scGPT model represents a landmark advancement, pretrained on over 33 million cells for multi-omic tasks [14] [11]. This foundation model employs self-supervised pretraining objectives including masked gene modeling to learn universal representations that support zero-shot cell type annotation and perturbation response prediction. The model's architecture enables transfer learning across diverse biological contexts, enhancing its robustness and versatility in single-cell analysis.

Nicheformer extends this approach to spatial contexts, employing graph transformers to model spatial cellular niches across 53 million spatially resolved cells [14] [11]. This spatial transformer architecture captures niche context and enables spatial integration at unprecedented scale. Another notable implementation, scPlantFormer, demonstrates the adaptability of these approaches across biological systems, integrating phylogenetic constraints into its attention mechanism to achieve 92% cross-species annotation accuracy in plant systems [14] [11].

Specialized Integration Architectures

Beyond general-purpose frameworks, several specialized architectures have been developed to address specific integration challenges. PathOmCLIP implements a contrastive learning model that connects tumor histology with spatial gene expression, validated across five tumor types to enhance gene expression prediction from histology images [14] [11]. This approach aligns histology images with spatial transcriptomics via contrastive learning, demonstrating the power of cross-modal alignment for bridging imaging and molecular profiling data.

StabMap introduces mosaic integration for non-overlapping features, enabling robust alignment of datasets that do not measure the same features by leveraging shared cell neighborhoods or robust cross-modal anchors rather than strict feature overlaps [14] [11]. This approach is particularly valuable for integrating datasets with different gene panels or measurement technologies. Similarly, EpiAgent specializes in epigenomic foundation modeling, focusing on cis-regulatory element (cCRE) reconstruction with ATAC-centric zero-shot capabilities [11].

Table 1: Quantitative Performance Metrics of Multimodal Integration Frameworks

Framework	Category	Training Scale	Key Performance Metrics	Supported Modalities
scGPT [14] [11]	Foundation Model	33 million+ cells	Superior multi-omic integration; Zero-shot annotation	Transcriptomics, Epigenomics
CellWhisperer [32]	Multimodal Embedding	1 million+ transcriptomes	AUROC: 0.927 for retrieval	Transcriptomics, Text
Nicheformer [14] [11]	Spatial Transformer	53 million spatial cells	Spatial context prediction	Spatial, Transcriptomics
scPlantFormer [14] [11]	Lightweight Foundation Model	1 million plant cells	92% cross-species accuracy	Transcriptomics, Phylogenetics
PathOmCLIP [14] [11]	Cross-modal Alignment	Five tumor types	Histology-gene mapping accuracy	Histology, Spatial Transcriptomics
scPairing [33]	Data Generation	Multiple tissue types	Captures biological structures	Multiomics, Unimodal integration

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Multimodal Embedding with Contrastive Learning

Principle: This protocol establishes a joint embedding space for transcriptomic and textual data using contrastive learning, enabling bidirectional retrieval and semantic search across modalities [32].

Reagents and Solutions:

• Hardware: High-performance computing cluster with GPU acceleration (minimum 16GB VRAM)
• Software: Python 3.8+, PyTorch 1.12+, CellWhisperer software package
• Data: ARCHS4 uniformly reprocessed GEO data; CELLxGENE Census pseudo-bulk transcriptomes

Procedure:

• Data Curation and Annotation:
  • Obtain approximately 1 million human RNA-seq profiles from GEO and CELLxGENE Census repositories
  • Apply LLM-assisted curation to create concise, coherent textual annotations for each sample based on sample-specific metadata
  • Standardize annotations to include cell types, organs, tissues, diseases, and experimental methods

• Model Architecture Configuration:

  • Implement dual-stream architecture with Geneformer (12-layer transformer) for transcriptomes
  • Implement BioBERT (biomedical text encoder) for textual annotations
  • Configure projection heads with 3 fully connected layers to map both modalities to 2,048-dimensional embedding space

• Contrastive Learning Training:

  • Initialize with pre-trained weights for both encoders
  • Set batch size to 512, learning rate to 5e-5 with cosine decay
  • Use symmetric cross-entropy loss function with temperature parameter τ=0.07
  • Train for 50 epochs with early stopping based on validation retrieval accuracy

• Validation and Benchmarking:

  • Evaluate embedding quality through cross-modal retrieval tasks
  • Calculate AUROC for text-to-transcriptome and transcriptome-to-text retrieval
  • Perform qualitative assessment through semantic search experiments with free-text queries

Troubleshooting Tips:

• For unstable training, reduce learning rate or increase batch size
• If textual annotations are noisy, implement additional preprocessing with regex filters
• For memory constraints, reduce embedding dimensionality to 1,024

Protocol 2: Cross-Modal Alignment of Histology and Spatial Transcriptomics

Principle: This protocol aligns histology images with spatial gene expression data using contrastive learning, enabling gene expression prediction from histology features [14] [11].

Reagents and Solutions:

• Hardware: GPU cluster with minimum 24GB VRAM for image processing
• Software: PathOmCLIP implementation, OpenSlide, ScanPy
• Data: Paired histology images and spatial transcriptomics from five tumor types

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Segment whole-slide images into 256×256 pixel patches at 20× magnification
  • Extract spatial barcodes and align with image coordinates
  • Normalize gene expression counts using scran pooling-based normalization
  • Select highly variable genes (top 5,000) for model training

• Multimodal Model Setup:

  • Configure ResNet-50 encoder for image patches with pre-trained ImageNet weights
  • Implement transformer encoder for gene expression data (128-dimensional embedding)
  • Project both modalities to 512-dimensional shared embedding space
  • Initialize with temperature-scaled contrastive loss (τ=0.05)

• Training Procedure:

  • Use balanced sampling from all five tumor types in each batch
  • Set initial learning rate to 1e-4 with linear warmup for first 5,000 steps
  • Apply gradient clipping at global norm 1.0
  • Train for 100 epochs with checkpointing based on validation contrastive accuracy

• Downstream Application:

  • Extract image embeddings to predict spatial gene expression patterns
  • Perform cross-modal retrieval: query with image patches to find matching expression profiles
  • Validate predictions using held-out tumor specimens

Validation Metrics:

• Contrastive alignment accuracy (should exceed 85%)
• Gene expression prediction Pearson correlation (should exceed 0.6 for top variable genes)
• Cross-tumor generalization performance

Protocol 3: Generation of Multiomics Data from Unimodal Datasets

Principle: This protocol generates realistic multiomics data by pairing separate unimodal datasets in a common embedding space, addressing the scarcity of true multiomics data [33].

Reagents and Solutions:

• Hardware: GPU workstation with 12GB+ VRAM
• Software: scPairing package, Scanny, scvi-tools
• Data: Unimodal scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq datasets from same tissue types

Procedure:

• Embedding Space Construction:
  • Process scRNA-seq data: normalize, log-transform, and select highly variable genes
  • Process scATAC-seq data: create gene activity scores from peak annotations
  • Train modality-specific encoders to project both data types to 256-dimensional latent space
  • Optimize using contrastive loss with in-batch negative examples

• Bridge Integration:

  • Identify "bridge" cells—a small set of true multiomics measurements
  • Use bridge cells to calibrate the relative positioning of unimodal embeddings
  • Apply optimal transport to align distribution of unimodal datasets

• Multiomics Generation:

  • For each cell in target unimodal dataset, find nearest neighbors in source modality
  • Create paired multiomics profiles through cross-modal imputation
  • Apply consistency filtering to remove biologically implausible pairings

• Quality Control and Validation:

  • Compare generated data with held-out true multiomics measurements
  • Assess preservation of cell-type specific patterns
  • Evaluate utility in downstream tasks: clustering, differential analysis, trajectory inference

Technical Notes:

• The method can be extended to trimodal data generation
• Performance depends on biological similarity between unimodal datasets
• Recommended minimum bridge cell set: 500 true multiomics cells

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Multimodal Integration Experiments

Reagent/Resource	Function	Example Specifications	Application Context
CELLxGENE Census [32]	Reference single-cell data repository	>100 million cells, standardized processing	Training data for foundation models
ARCHS4 [32]	Bulk RNA-seq resource	705,430 human transcriptomes	Pretraining corpus for multimodal learning
BioBERT [32]	Biomedical text encoder	BERT-base architecture, biomedical vocabulary	Text modality processing
Geneformer [32]	Transcriptome encoder	12-layer transformer, 86 million parameters	Transcriptome embedding generation
scGPT [14] [11]	Foundation model	33+ million cell pretraining	Multi-omic integration baseline
DISCO Platform [14] [11]	Federated analysis	100+ million cells aggregated	Large-scale validation
BioLLM [14] [11]	Benchmarking framework	15+ foundation models interface	Comparative performance assessment

Visualization of Multimodal Integration Workflows

Contrastive Learning Embedding Workflow

Multiomics Data Generation Process

Applications and Biological Insights

Multimodal integration frameworks have enabled significant advances across multiple biological domains, particularly in unraveling complex disease mechanisms and developmental processes. In oncology, approaches like PathOmCLIP have demonstrated how histology images can predict spatial gene expression patterns across five tumor types, creating digital bridges between conventional pathology and molecular profiling [14] [11]. This capability is particularly valuable for leveraging extensive historical pathology archives for molecular insights when fresh tissue is unavailable.

In developmental biology, integrated analysis of transcriptomic and epigenomic data has revealed context-specific regulatory networks, such as chromatin accessibility patterns that govern lineage commitment in hematopoiesis [14] [11]. The harmonization of these modalities enables researchers to distinguish cause from consequence in gene regulatory programs, moving beyond correlative relationships to mechanistic understanding of cell fate decisions.

Cross-species applications represent another promising frontier, with frameworks like scPlantFormer achieving 92% annotation accuracy in plant systems by integrating phylogenetic constraints [14] [11]. This capability facilitates knowledge transfer from model organisms to less-studied species, accelerating discovery in non-model systems and supporting comparative biology approaches to understand evolutionary conservation of cellular programs.

Future Perspectives and Challenges

Despite significant progress, several challenges persist in multimodal data integration. Technical variability across experimental platforms continues to complicate integration efforts, while limited model interpretability hinders biological validation of computational predictions [14] [11]. There remain significant gaps in translating computational insights into clinical applications, particularly for diagnostic and therapeutic development.

Emerging strategies to address these challenges include the development of standardized benchmarking frameworks, multimodal knowledge graphs that incorporate prior biological knowledge, and collaborative frameworks that integrate artificial intelligence with human expertise [14] [11]. Sustainable infrastructure for model sharing and version control—similar to Hugging Face in natural language processing—represents an urgent requirement for the field [14] [11].

The integration of increasingly diverse data types, including spatial proteomics, metabolomics, and time-resolved data, presents both challenges and opportunities for next-generation multimodal frameworks. Advances in these areas will likely depend on hybrid architectures that combine the strengths of multiple neural network paradigms, alongside improved training strategies that leverage biological prior knowledge to guide the integration process.

The advent of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a paradigm shift in computational biology, revolutionizing our approach to cell type annotation and atlas mapping. These large-scale deep learning models, pretrained on millions of single-cell transcriptomes, have unlocked unprecedented capabilities for zero-shot and few-shot learning applications in cellular analysis [1] [14]. By learning universal representations from vast and diverse datasets, scFMs can generalize to new biological contexts with minimal task-specific training, effectively addressing the critical bottleneck of cell type annotation in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis [13] [34]. This advancement is particularly crucial within the broader framework of multi-omics data integration, where scFMs serve as unifying architectures capable of harmonizing transcriptomic, epigenomic, proteomic, and spatial imaging data to delineate multilayered regulatory networks across biological scales [11] [14].

The transition from traditional manual annotation—which relies on expert knowledge of marker genes and is inherently subjective and time-consuming—to automated, scalable scFM-based approaches marks a fundamental transformation in single-cell biology [35]. Models such as scGPT (pretrained on over 33 million cells) and scPlantFormer demonstrate exceptional cross-species annotation capabilities, with the latter achieving 92% accuracy in plant systems [11] [14]. Furthermore, specialized frameworks like LangCell employ CLIP-style contrastive learning to align scRNA-seq profiles with natural language descriptions of cell identities, enabling true zero-shot annotation without requiring retraining on new datasets [13] [35]. These developments are rapidly accelerating the construction of comprehensive cell atlases while improving the reproducibility and standardization of cell type annotation across diverse tissues, species, and disease states.

Core Concepts and Defining Frameworks

Zero-shot and Few-shot Learning Paradigms

In the context of cell type annotation, zero-shot and few-shot learning represent powerful approaches that minimize the need for extensive labeled data:

• Zero-shot learning enables models to accurately annotate cell types they were never explicitly trained to recognize. This is achieved by leveraging semantic relationships or shared representations between seen and unseen cell types [35]. For instance, LangCell performs zero-shot annotation by aligning cell embeddings with textual descriptions of cell identities in a shared embedding space, allowing the model to infer novel cell types based on their conceptual similarity to known types [13] [35].

• Few-shot learning allows models to rapidly adapt to new annotation tasks with only a handful of labeled examples, typically ranging from one to dozens of samples per cell type [36]. This approach is particularly valuable for rare cell types or novel biological contexts where comprehensive training data is unavailable. Few-shot methods commonly employ meta-learning frameworks that train models to quickly learn new tasks, transfer learning that fine-tunes pretrained models on limited new data, or metric learning that compares query cells to a small support set of labeled examples [36].

These paradigms are fundamentally enabled by the pretraining of scFMs on massive, diverse corpora of single-cell data (often encompassing 30-50 million cells), which allows the models to learn universal representations of cellular states that transfer effectively to new annotation challenges [13] [1].

Essential scFM Architectures for Annotation

Several architectural innovations have proven particularly impactful for cell type annotation tasks:

• Transformer-based encoders form the backbone of most scFMs, utilizing self-attention mechanisms to capture complex relationships between genes within individual cells [1] [14]. Models like scGPT employ decoder-style transformers with masked gene modeling objectives, while others use BERT-like encoder architectures [11].

• Multimodal alignment frameworks enable cross-modal reasoning essential for sophisticated annotation. CLIP-style architectures, as implemented in LangCell, align cellular profiling data with natural language descriptions, creating a shared semantic space where biological concepts and transcriptomic patterns inform each other [13] [35].

• Graph-enhanced refinement methods address the limitation that most scFMs don't explicitly preserve the local cellular neighborhood structure that human experts routinely use for annotation. Approaches like GRIT (Graph-Regularized Logit Refinement) apply graph-based smoothing to scFM outputs using PCA-based k-NN graphs, consistently improving annotation accuracy by enforcing local consistency [35].

Quantitative Performance Landscape

Benchmarking scFM Performance Across Annotation Tasks

Rigorous benchmarking studies provide critical insights into the real-world performance of scFMs for cell type annotation. A comprehensive evaluation of six leading scFMs against established baselines across multiple datasets and metrics reveals a nuanced landscape where model performance varies significantly based on task specifics, dataset size, and biological context [13].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Major scFMs in Cell Type Annotation

Model	Parameters	Pretraining Data	Key Annotation Strengths	Reported Performance
scGPT	50M	33M cells	Multi-omic integration, zero-shot annotation, perturbation modeling	Superior cross-task generalization [11]
Geneformer	40M	30M cells	Context-aware embeddings, transfer learning	Effective few-shot adaptation [13]
scPlantFormer	Not specified	1M plant cells	Cross-species annotation, phylogenetic constraints	92% cross-species accuracy [11] [14]
LangCell	40M	27.5M cell-text pairs	CLIP-style zero-shot annotation, natural language alignment	Improved with graph refinement [13] [35]
scFoundation	100M	50M cells	Human-focused annotation, large capacity	Robust on human datasets [13]
Nicheformer	Not specified	110M cells	Spatial context integration, massive scale	Zero-shot capability [14]

Performance Metrics and Comparative Analysis

Evaluation of scFM performance extends beyond simple accuracy metrics to include specialized measures that capture biological relevance:

• Zero-shot accuracy varies substantially across models and biological contexts, with leading models achieving 80-90% accuracy for major cell types but lower performance for rare or novel cell populations [13] [34].

• Macro F1 scores provide a more balanced assessment for imbalanced cell type distributions, with scFMs typically outperforming traditional methods but showing significant variability across tissue types [13].

• Biological consistency metrics offer crucial insights into the functional relevance of annotations. The novel scGraph-OntoRWR metric measures how well cell type relationships captured by scFMs align with established biological knowledge in cell ontologies, while the Lowest Common Ancestor Distance (LCAD) metric quantifies the ontological proximity between misclassified cell types, providing a more nuanced error analysis [13].

Table 2: Task-Specific Model Recommendations Based on Benchmarking Studies

Use Case Scenario	Recommended Approach	Rationale	Key Considerations
Large, diverse datasets	scGPT, scFoundation	Leverages pretraining, handles complexity	Computational resources required [11] [13]
Resource-constrained environments	Traditional ML + HVGs	Efficient adaptation to specific datasets	Limited generalization [13]
Cross-species annotation	scPlantFormer	Phylogenetic constraints, specialized architecture	Plant-specific currently [11] [14]
Zero-shot requirements	LangCell + GRIT refinement	CLIP-style alignment, graph regularization	Prompt sensitivity [13] [35]
Spatial context needed	Nicheformer	Spatial graph transformers, niche modeling	Computational intensity [14]

Notably, benchmarking reveals that no single scFM consistently outperforms all others across every task and dataset, emphasizing the importance of context-dependent model selection [13]. Simpler machine learning approaches with careful feature selection (e.g., Highly Variable Genes) can sometimes match or exceed scFM performance on specific, narrow tasks—particularly under significant resource constraints or when dealing with highly specialized cell types absent from pretraining corpora [13].

Application Notes and Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Zero-shot Cell Type Annotation with LangCell and GRIT Refinement

Purpose: To perform automated cell type annotation on a novel scRNA-seq dataset without task-specific training, combining the scalability of foundation models with the structural robustness of graph-based refinement.

Materials:

• Processed scRNA-seq data (AnnData format)
• LangCell model (cell encoder and text encoder)
• Precomputed cell type text descriptions from Cell Ontology
• Computational environment: Python with scverse ecosystem (scanpy, scvi-tools)

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Normalize, log-transform, and select highly variable genes using standard scRNA-seq processing pipelines. Preserve the raw counts matrix for LangCell input.
• LangCell Initialization: Load the pretrained LangCell model, which consists of a Geneformer-based cell encoder and BERT-style text encoder.
• Text Embedding Generation: For each candidate cell type, create a natural language description (e.g., "T cell: immune cell expressing CD3D, CD3E, CD3G, involved in adaptive immunity") and encode these descriptions using the text encoder.
• Zero-shot Prediction: For each cell in the query dataset, compute its embedding using the cell encoder and calculate similarity scores (cosine similarity) with all text embeddings. The highest similarity score determines the preliminary cell type assignment.
• Graph Construction: Perform PCA on the normalized expression matrix and construct a k-NN graph (k=15-30) based on the principal components that capture biological variance.
• GRIT Refinement: Apply graph-regularized optimization to refine the initial prediction logits. The objective function minimizes:
  • Distance between refined logits and original LangCell predictions
  • Graph-based smoothness term encouraging neighboring cells to have similar label distributions
• Annotation Output: Generate final cell type assignments from the refined logits and compute confidence scores for each assignment.

Troubleshooting: If annotation accuracy is low, consider adjusting the k-NN graph parameters, increasing the number of principal components, or refining the text prompts for cell type descriptions. The GRIT method has demonstrated accuracy improvements of up to 10% over standalone LangCell predictions [35].

Protocol 2: Few-shot Atlas Mapping with scGPT

Purpose: To rapidly adapt a pretrained scFM for specialized atlas mapping with limited labeled data from the target biological context.

Materials:

• scGPT model (pretrained on 33M cells)
• Target scRNA-seq dataset with limited labeled cells (1-50 examples per cell type)
• Reference atlas data (optional, for transfer learning)

Procedure:

• Model Setup: Load the pretrained scGPT model and prepare the tokenizer configured for the model's specific gene vocabulary.
• Data Alignment: Map the target dataset's genes to the model's predefined gene set, handling missing genes through imputation or masking.
• Prompt Construction: For few-shot learning, structure input sequences as:
  • [CELL] token followed by labeled support examples
  • [QUERY] token followed by unlabeled target cells
  • Special tokens delineating different cell type categories
• Adaptation Training: Fine-tune scGPT using a masked gene modeling objective on the target dataset, with careful regularization to prevent catastrophic forgetting of pretrained knowledge. Use a low learning rate (1e-5 to 1e-4) and early stopping.
• Embedding Extraction: Pass all cells through the adapted model and extract the [CELL] token embeddings for downstream analysis.
• Annotation Transfer: Compute similarities between query cell embeddings and support set embeddings, applying k-NN classification or cluster-based labeling.
• Validation: Assess annotation quality using cross-validation within the labeled subset and biological plausibility checks using marker gene expression.

Troubleshooting: For small support sets (≤5 examples per class), employ data augmentation techniques such as adding Gaussian noise to expression values or using generative models to create synthetic examples. Progressive unfreezing of model layers during fine-tuning can help maintain pretrained knowledge while adapting to new data [36].

Protocol 3: Multimodal Integration for Novel Cell State Discovery

Purpose: To leverage multi-omics data integration for identifying novel cell states and refining atlas organization using cross-modal foundation models.

Materials:

• Multi-omics data (transcriptome + epigenome/proteome/spatial)
• Multimodal scFM (e.g., scGPT multi-omic version)
• Cluster evaluation metrics (silhouette score, modularity)

Procedure:

• Data Harmonization: Preprocess each omics modality separately, then align cells across modalities using mutual nearest neighbors or anchor-based integration.
• Multimodal Tokenization: Convert each cell's multi-omics profile into a unified token sequence, incorporating modality-specific tokens to distinguish data types.
• Cross-modal Pretraining: Train or fine-tune the scFM using masked modeling objectives that randomly mask tokens across different modalities, forcing the model to learn cross-modal relationships.
• Joint Embedding Generation: Extract cell embeddings that integrate information from all available modalities.
• Multi-resolution Clustering: Perform clustering at multiple resolution parameters to identify stable cell states across hierarchical organization levels.
• Novelty Detection: Identify clusters lacking clear marker-based annotation by:
  • Computing cluster-specific differentially expressed genes
  • Comparing expression profiles to reference cell types
  • Assessing cluster stability across embedding variants
• Biological Validation: Hypothesize functional roles for novel states through:
  • Enrichment analysis of regulatory elements
  • Spatial localization patterns (if available)
  • Trajectory analysis positioning novel states in differentiation continua

Troubleshooting: If modalities show poor integration, adjust the loss function weights to balance modality contributions or employ specialized integration frameworks like StabMap for mosaic integration of non-overlapping features [11] [14].

Visualizing Annotation Workflows

Zero-shot Annotation with Graph Refinement Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Computational Tools for scFM-Based Cell Annotation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
CZ CELLxGENE Discover	Data Platform	Provides standardized access to >100M curated cells	Pretraining data, reference atlases [11] [14]
scGPT	Foundation Model	Multi-omic integration, perturbation modeling	Zero-shot annotation, atlas mapping [11]
LangCell	Multimodal Framework	CLIP-style cell-text alignment	Zero-shot annotation [13] [35]
GRIT	Refinement Algorithm	Graph-based logit regularization	Improving prediction consistency [35]
AnnDictionary	LLM Interface	Unified access to multiple LLM providers	Automated annotation evaluation [34]
BioLLM	Benchmarking Suite	Standardized evaluation of >15 scFMs	Model selection, performance assessment [11] [14]
SynOmics	Integration Framework	Graph convolutional networks for multi-omics	Cross-modal feature interaction [37]

The integration of zero-shot and few-shot learning approaches with single-cell foundation models has fundamentally transformed the landscape of cell type annotation and atlas mapping. These methodologies have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in automating what was traditionally a labor-intensive, expert-dependent process while maintaining or even improving annotation accuracy across diverse biological contexts [13] [35]. The convergence of multimodal data integration, sophisticated model architectures, and biologically informed refinement techniques represents a paradigm shift in how we classify and understand cellular diversity.

Looking forward, several emerging trends promise to further advance the field. Improved cross-species annotation frameworks will enable better translation from model organisms to human biology [11]. More sophisticated few-shot learning approaches will address the critical challenge of rare cell type identification [36]. Enhanced multimodal integration will create unified representations that capture the full complexity of cellular states [37] [14]. Additionally, the development of more interpretable scFMs will be crucial for building biological trust and generating novel insights rather than merely automating existing annotation paradigms [13] [1]. As these technologies mature, they will increasingly become the standard methodology for cell annotation, ultimately accelerating the mapping of complete cellular atlases across tissues, organisms, and disease states.

In silico perturbation modeling represents a transformative approach in computational biology, enabling researchers to predict cellular responses to genetic and chemical interventions without the need for extensive physical experiments. By leveraging large-scale perturbation data and advanced deep learning architectures, these models simulate the effects of perturbations, such as gene knockouts or drug treatments, on cellular states, typically measured by transcriptomic or other omics readouts [38]. The integration of these approaches with single-cell Foundation Models (scFMs) creates a powerful framework for multi-omics data integration, offering unprecedented opportunities to accelerate therapeutic discovery and functional genomics [11] [1]. This Application Note provides a detailed overview of the core methodologies, validation protocols, and practical applications of in silico perturbation models, with a specific focus on their role in multi-omics research.

Core Concepts and Model Architectures

Foundational Objectives of Perturbation Modeling

In silico perturbation modeling is built around several core biological discovery objectives, which guide model design and application. These objectives include: (O1) Extrapolation and Elucidation of perturbations to predict unseen molecular changes and novel cell states; (O2) Mechanism Identification to determine the mode of action of chemical or genetic perturbations; (O3) Interaction Prediction to identify synergistic or antagonistic effects in combinatorial treatments; and (O4) Chemical Property Inference to connect biological responses to structural features of compounds [38].

Architectural Paradigms in Perturbation Modeling

Current state-of-the-art models primarily employ two distinct architectural paradigms, each with specific advantages for multi-omics integration:

Encoder-Based Foundation Models (e.g., Geneformer, scGPT) utilize transformer architectures pretrained on vast single-cell omics datasets, typically comprising tens of millions of cells [11] [1]. These models treat individual cells as "sentences" and genes or genomic features as "words" or "tokens," learning generalizable representations of cellular states through self-supervised objectives like masked gene prediction [1]. A key innovation in these approaches is their tokenization strategies, which convert non-sequential gene expression data into structured model inputs through techniques such as ranking genes by expression levels or binning expression values [1].

Decoder-Focused Large Perturbation Models (e.g., LPM) introduce a disentangled representation of the core experimental dimensions: Perturbation (P), Readout (R), and Context (C) [39] [40]. This PRC-conditioned architecture employs a decoder-only design that explicitly conditions on symbolic representations of perturbations, readouts, and experimental contexts, enabling seamless integration of heterogeneous data across diverse perturbation types (CRISPR, chemical), readout modalities (transcriptomics, viability), and experimental systems (single-cell, bulk) [39].

Table 1: Comparison of In Silico Perturbation Model Architectures

Model Type	Representative Examples	Core Architecture	Key Advantages	Multi-omics Compatibility
Encoder-Based scFMs	Geneformer, scGPT	Transformer Encoder	Contextual predictions for unseen biological contexts; Transfer learning capabilities	Primarily transcriptomics with extensions to multiome data
Decoder-Based LPMs	Large Perturbation Model (LPM)	Decoder-Only Transformer	Integration of diverse perturbation types and readout modalities; Disentangled representations	Native support for cross-modal integration (transcriptomics, viability, etc.)
Hybrid Approaches	Closed-loop Geneformer	Fine-tuned Encoder	Iterative improvement with experimental data; Enhanced predictive accuracy for specific applications	Dependent on base model capabilities

Diagram 1: Architectural paradigms for in silico perturbation modeling, showing encoder-based, decoder-based, and hybrid approaches.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Implementing Large Perturbation Models for Cross-Modal Prediction

Objective: Train and validate an LPM to predict post-perturbation transcriptomes across diverse experimental contexts and perturbation types.

Materials and Data Requirements:

• Perturbation Data: Collect heterogeneous perturbation datasets spanning multiple modalities (genetic and chemical perturbations)
• Context Information: Include detailed metadata on experimental contexts (cell type, tissue origin, culture conditions)
• Readout Specifications: Define target readouts (transcriptomics, viability, chromatin accessibility)

Procedure:

• Data Integration and Preprocessing
  • Pool data from diverse perturbation experiments such as LINCS (bulk transcriptomics) and Perturb-seq (single-cell) [39] [41]
  • Represent each experiment as a (P,R,C) tuple: Perturbation identity, Readout type, and Context specification
  • Apply appropriate normalization for each readout modality (e.g., z-scoring for transcriptomics, min-max scaling for viability)

• Model Training

  • Implement decoder-only transformer architecture with separate embedding layers for P, R, and C dimensions
  • Train model to minimize mean squared error between predicted and observed readout values
  • Use cross-validation strategy where single experimental context is held out as target context for each fold

• Validation and Benchmarking

  • Compare performance against state-of-the-art baselines (CPA, GEARS) using multiple metrics (R², AUC-PR)
  • Evaluate generalizability across unseen perturbation-context combinations
  • Assess biological relevance of embeddings through functional enrichment analysis

Troubleshooting Tips:

• For poor cross-context generalization: Ensure training data encompasses sufficient context diversity
• For low predictive accuracy on specific perturbation types: Increase representation of underrepresented perturbation classes in training data
• For computational constraints: Implement gradient checkpointing or mixed-precision training

Protocol 2: Closed-Loop Framework for Therapeutic Target Discovery

Objective: Implement a closed-loop in silico perturbation framework to identify and validate therapeutic targets for rare diseases.

Materials and Data Requirements:

• Foundation Model: Pretrained scFM (e.g., Geneformer-30M-12L)
• Disease-Specific Data: scRNA-seq data from disease models and healthy controls
• Perturbation Validation Data: Limited set of experimental perturbation measurements for model refinement

Procedure:

• Baseline Model Fine-tuning
  • Fine-tune pretrained Geneformer on disease-specific scRNA-seq data to classify disease versus control cellular states
  • Validate model performance on hold-out test set of cells (target: >99% accuracy)

• Open-Loop In Silico Perturbation Screening

  • Perform genome-wide in silico perturbations simulating both gene knockout and overexpression
  • Identify genes whose perturbation shifts disease state toward healthy control state
  • Compare predictions with differential expression analysis results

• Closed-Loop Model Refinement

  • Incorporate limited experimental perturbation data (e.g., Perturb-seq results) into fine-tuning process
  • Retrain model with combined baseline data and perturbation examples
  • Re-run in silico perturbation predictions with refined model

• Therapeutic Target Prioritization

  • Intersect predictions from multiple methods (ISP, differential expression)
  • Filter for genes with available therapeutic interventions (small molecules, biologics)
  • Validate top candidates through experimental assays

Validation Metrics:

• Calculate Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity against orthogonal validation data
• Assess area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for target identification
• Perform pathway enrichment analysis on prioritized targets to assess biological coherence

Validation and Benchmarking Strategies

Quantitative Performance Assessment

Rigorous validation is essential for establishing the predictive utility of in silico perturbation models. Comparative benchmarks demonstrate that LPM architectures consistently outperform existing methods across diverse experimental settings [39]. The table below summarizes key performance metrics across different model architectures and biological applications.

Table 2: Performance Benchmarking of In Silico Perturbation Models

Model/Application	Prediction Task	Key Performance Metrics	Comparative Advantage
Large Perturbation Model (LPM)	Cross-context transcriptome prediction	State-of-the-art R² across multiple contexts	Outperforms CPA, GEARS, and embedding-based methods
Closed-loop Geneformer	T-cell activation target identification	PPV: 9% (vs 3% open-loop), NPV: 99%, Sensitivity: 76%, Specificity: 81%	3-fold PPV improvement over open-loop approach
Open-loop Geneformer	T-cell activation target identification	PPV: 3%, NPV: 98%, Sensitivity: 48%, Specificity: 60%	Superior to differential expression for negative prediction
scGPT	Cell type annotation & perturbation	>90% accuracy on cross-species annotation	Strong generalization across biological contexts

Biological Validation Frameworks

Beyond quantitative metrics, biological validation is crucial for establishing model utility in real-world applications:

Mechanism of Action Validation: For drug perturbation predictions, validate that compounds with similar mechanisms cluster together in embedding space and that anomalous compounds have documented off-target effects [39].

Therapeutic Application: Apply models to specific disease contexts such as RUNX1-familial platelet disorder or autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) and experimentally validate prioritized targets [39] [4].

Cross-Species Generalization: Evaluate model performance on cross-species annotation tasks, with models like scPlantFormer achieving 92% accuracy in plant systems [11].

Successful implementation of in silico perturbation modeling requires both computational resources and biological datasets. The following table outlines key components of the research toolkit for this domain.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for In Silico Perturbation Modeling

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Access Information
Perturbation Datasets	LINCS L1000, Connectivity Map, Perturb-seq	Training and validation data for model development	https://clue.io/ [41]
Computational Models	Geneformer, scGPT, LPM	Pretrained models for transfer learning and fine-tuning	Hugging Face, GitHub repositories [11]
Benchmarking Platforms	BioLLM	Standardized framework for model evaluation and comparison	Open-source implementations [11]
Data Repositories	CZ CELLxGENE, GEO, SRA	Sources of single-cell omics data for model pretraining	https://cellxgene.cziscience.com/ [1]
Specialized Perturbation Technologies	CROP-seq, Perturb-ATAC, MIX-seq	Experimental methods for generating perturbation data	Protocol-specific implementations [38]

Applications in Drug Discovery and Functional Genomics

Mechanism of Action Elucidation

In silico perturbation models significantly advance mechanism of action (MoA) identification for therapeutic compounds. LPM demonstrates particular strength in integrating genetic and pharmacological perturbations within a unified latent space, enabling direct comparison of compound effects with targeted genetic interventions [39]. For example, pharmacological inhibitors consistently cluster near genetic perturbations targeting the same genes, validating the biological relevance of the learned representations [39]. This approach can identify anomalous compounds with unexpected positioning in perturbation space, potentially revealing off-target effects or novel mechanisms, as demonstrated with pravastatin's proximity to anti-inflammatory drugs targeting PTGS1 [39].

Rare Disease Therapeutic Target Identification

The application of closed-loop in silico perturbation frameworks to rare diseases addresses significant challenges in experimental screening when patient samples are scarce [4]. In RUNX1-familial platelet disorder, this approach identified and validated multiple therapeutic targets including mTOR and CD74-MIF signaling axis, as well as novel pathways involving protein kinase C and phosphoinositide 3-kinase [4]. The framework demonstrated that even limited experimental perturbation data (10-20 examples) substantially improved model performance, making it particularly valuable for rare disease applications where comprehensive screening is impractical [4].

Diagram 2: Application workflow for drug discovery, showing the iterative process from target identification to therapeutic application.

In silico perturbation modeling, particularly when integrated with single-cell foundation models within a multi-omics framework, represents a paradigm shift in how researchers approach the study of cellular responses to genetic and chemical interventions. The protocols and applications outlined in this document provide a roadmap for leveraging these powerful computational approaches to accelerate therapeutic discovery and functional genomics. As the field evolves, continued refinement of model architectures, validation standards, and integration with emerging experimental technologies will further enhance the predictive power and practical utility of these methods across diverse biological contexts and therapeutic areas.

The integration of single-cell multi-omics data with single-cell foundation models (scFMs) presents a transformative opportunity for inferring high-fidelity gene regulatory networks (GRNs). This application note details protocols for extracting and interpreting attention patterns from transformer-based scFMs to decode mechanistic regulatory insights. We provide methodologies for translating model-inferred relationships into biologically testable hypotheses, supported by structured data presentation and visualization tools tailored for research scientists and drug development professionals.

Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) represent the complex circuitry of a cell, detailing how transcription factors (TFs) directly or indirectly bind to cis-regulatory regions to control gene expression [42]. Charting these networks is fundamental to understanding how cells develop, respond to stimuli, and maintain homeostasis. Traditional methods for GRN inference, including chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by microarray (ChIP-chip) or sequencing (ChIP-seq), have provided valuable insights but face limitations in resolution and scalability [42].

The advent of single-cell genomics has generated vast amounts of data across diverse tissues and conditions, creating an urgent need for unified analytical frameworks [43]. Concurrently, transformer-based architectures have revolutionized natural language processing and are now being adapted to single-cell biology as scFMs. These large-scale, self-supervised models are trained on diverse single-cell datasets and can be adapted for various downstream tasks, including GRN inference [43]. A key innovation lies in their attention mechanisms, which learn and weight relationships between genes, potentially uncovering functional regulatory connections.

This protocol details how to leverage these attention patterns to infer GRNs, providing a bridge between computational predictions and biological validation within a multi-omics integration framework.

Background and Principles

Gene Regulatory Networks and Multi-omics Data

GRNs are composed of genes, their regulatory products (such as TFs), and the interactions that control cellular processes. A complete GRN must account for the genomic DNA sequence, including genes in networks and their cis-regulatory control elements [42]. The integration of multi-omics data—encompassing genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, and proteomics—is crucial for a holistic understanding of these networks. This integration helps assess the flow of information from one omics level to another, bridging the gap from genotype to phenotype [19].

Single-Cell Foundation Models and Attention Mechanisms

Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) treat individual cells as sentences and genes or genomic features as words or tokens [43]. By being trained on millions of single-cell transcriptomes and other omics data, these models learn the fundamental principles of cellular states. The transformer architecture, the backbone of most scFMs, uses attention mechanisms to learn and weight the relationships between any pair of input tokens (genes/features) [43]. In the context of GRN inference, the attention weights between a transcription factor gene and a potential target gene can be interpreted as the strength of their putative regulatory relationship.

Protocol: Inferring GRNs from scFM Attention Patterns

Prerequisites and Data Preparation

Software and Tools:

• Python Environment: Python 3.8+ with PyTorch/TensorFlow and a deep learning library implementing transformer architectures (e.g., Hugging Face Transformers).
• scFM: A pre-trained single-cell foundation model. Examples include scBERT or other models trained on large-scale single-cell datasets [43].
• Data Processing Libraries: Scanpy or Seurat for single-cell data preprocessing.
• Network Analysis Tools: NetworkX or Cytoscape for network visualization and analysis [44] [45].

Input Data:

• Single-Cell Multi-omics Data: A gene expression matrix (cells x genes) from a scRNA-seq experiment. Optionally, include scATAC-seq data to provide information on chromatin accessibility [43] [19].
• Gene and TF Annotation: A comprehensive list of transcription factors and their known or putative target genes, available from databases like TRRUST2 [45].

Step-by-Step Methodology

Step 1: Model Fine-Tuning and Attention Extraction

• Data Tokenization: Convert the raw gene expression matrix into a format the scFM can process. This typically involves normalizing counts and creating a deterministic sequence of genes for each cell, often by ranking genes by their expression levels [43].

• Model Inference: Pass the tokenized data for your cell population of interest through the fine-tuned scFM.
• Attention Weight Extraction: Extract the attention weight matrices from the transformer layers of the model. These matrices have dimensions (number of cells, number of attention heads, number of genes, number of genes), representing the attention paid from each gene to every other gene.

Step 2: Aggregation and Network Construction

• Aggregate Attention Weights: Average attention weights across all cells, attention heads, and model layers. To focus on direct regulatory relationships, use the attention weights from the first layer or employ methods to identify the most relevant layers and heads.

• Construct the Adjacency Matrix: Create a gene-gene adjacency matrix where the edge weight from TF gene i to target gene j is the aggregated attention score. Apply a threshold to focus on the strongest connections.
• Build the Network: Use the thresholded adjacency matrix to construct a directed network graph, where nodes are genes and edges represent inferred regulatory interactions weighted by the attention scores.

Step 3: Validation and Interpretation

• Experimental Validation: Compare the inferred network against known regulatory interactions from gold-standard databases (e.g., TRRUST2) [45].
• Functional Enrichment Analysis: Perform gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis on groups of genes that are highly connected in the network to assess the biological relevance of the inferred modules.
• Motif and Feedback Loop Analysis: Use tools like iRegulon [44] or HiLoop [45] to search for enriched DNA binding motifs in the promoter regions of co-regulated gene clusters identified by the network. HiLoop can also identify and model complex high-feedback loops within your inferred GRN.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the core computational workflow for GRN inference from scFM attention patterns.

Diagram 1: Workflow for GRN inference from scFM attention patterns.

Data Presentation and Analysis

Quantitative Analysis of Inferred GRNs

The following table summarizes potential validation metrics for an inferred GRN, comparing its performance against established methods like those based on ChIP-seq data.

Table 1: Performance comparison of GRN inference methods using a reference network from a database like TRRUST2.

Inference Method	Precision	Recall	F1-Score	AUROC	Number of High-Confidence Edges
scFM Attention	0.28	0.35	0.31	0.82	15,450
GENIE3	0.22	0.41	0.29	0.79	12,100
PIDC	0.18	0.25	0.21	0.71	8,850

Analysis of High-Feedback Loops

Using a tool like HiLoop [45], you can identify and characterize complex feedback structures within your inferred GRN. The table below provides a template for summarizing the enrichment of different high-feedback loop topologies.

Table 2: Enrichment analysis of high-feedback loops in an inferred GRN related to epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT).

High-Feedback Topology	Count in EMT GRN	Count in Random Network	Enrichment p-value	Key Transcription Factors
Type-I (3 positive loops)	70,064	1,250	< 1e-10	SNAI1, ZEB1, TCF12
Type-II (MISA)	62,894	980	< 1e-10	MTF1, LARP4, SMC3
Paradoxical (Positive+Negative)	15,220	450	< 1e-8	TCF12, MTF1

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential research reagents and computational tools for GRN inference with scFMs.

Item Name	Function / Description	Example / Source
CZ CELLxGENE	Platform providing unified access to millions of annotated single-cell datasets for model training and validation [43].	https://cellxgene.cziscience.com/
TRRUST2 Database	Curated database of transcriptional regulatory networks for validating inferred TF-target interactions [45].	https://www.gmpedia.org/trrust/
iRegulon (Cytoscape App)	Tool for identifying master regulators and their targets by mining chromatin data and motif databases [44].	Cytoscape App Store
HiLoop Toolkit	Software for identifying, visualizing, and mathematically modeling high-feedback loops in large GRNs [45].	https://github.com/BenNordick/HiLoop
Pre-trained scFM Models	Foundation models (e.g., scBERT, GeneFormer) pre-trained on large single-cell corpora, ready for fine-tuning.	Hugging Face / Publication Repositories

Visualization of Regulatory Motifs

The following diagram illustrates a specific high-feedback loop topology (Type-II), which can be identified in an inferred GRN using the HiLoop toolkit [45].

Diagram 2: A Type-II high-feedback loop with mutual inhibition and self-activation.

The advent of single-cell multi-omics technologies has revolutionized biomedical research by enabling the comprehensive exploration of cellular heterogeneity, developmental trajectories, and disease mechanisms at unprecedented resolution. Single-cell foundation models (scFMs), large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast datasets, are now driving a paradigm shift in analyzing this high-dimensional, multimodal data [11] [43]. These models, originally developed for natural language processing, learn universal biological representations from millions of single cells, allowing them to be adapted for diverse downstream clinical tasks including cell type annotation, perturbation response prediction, and gene regulatory network inference [11].

Framed within the broader thesis of multi-omics data integration with scFMs research, this article provides actionable Application Notes and Protocols for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. The clinical translation of these computational approaches holds particular promise for precision medicine, where the integration of genomic, transcriptomic, epigenomic, proteomic, and spatial data can reveal the complex molecular architecture of diseases [46]. The global omics-based clinical trials market, predicted to reach $44.08 billion by 2029, reflects the growing adoption of these methodologies in drug development [47].

Application Note 1: Oncology - Deconvoluting the Tumor Microenvironment

Background and Significance

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a complex ecosystem containing various cell types, including cancer cells, immune cells, and stromal cells, all tightly inter-associated and interacting with each other [48]. This heterogeneous milieu induces various cancer progression patterns and leads to distinct treatment responses across different patients. scFMs excel at deconvoluting this cellular complexity by integrating multi-omic measurements to identify rare cell populations, cellular states, and interaction networks that drive tumor evolution and therapy resistance [11] [48].

Key Applications and Workflows

Cellular Composition Analysis: scFMs enable precise annotation of cell types within the TME, including immune cell subsets (T cells, B cells, macrophages), stromal cells (fibroblasts, endothelial cells), and malignant cells. Models such as scGPT achieve exceptional cross-task generalization, enabling zero-shot cell type annotation without requiring task-specific training [11]. This capability is crucial for identifying rare but functionally important cell populations that may represent less than 1% of the total cellular content but significantly impact therapeutic response.

Immunotherapy Response Prediction: By analyzing pre-treatment tumor samples, scFMs can model cellular interactions, particularly immune checkpoint expression patterns and immune cell-tumor cell communication networks. The Nicheformer framework, trained on 53 million spatially resolved cells, employs graph transformers to model spatial cellular niches and predict response to immune checkpoint blockade therapies [11].

Table 1: scFMs for Oncology Applications

Application Area	Relevant scFMs	Key Capabilities	Reported Performance
Cell Type Annotation	scGPT, scPlantFormer	Zero-shot cross-species annotation	92% cross-species accuracy [11]
Satial Niche Modeling	Nicheformer	Graph transformer for spatial contexts	Trained on 53M spatial cells [11]
Histology-Gene Alignment	PathOmCLIP	Connects histology with spatial transcriptomics	Validated across 5 tumor types [11]
Multi-omic Integration	scGPT, TMO-Net	Harmonizes transcriptomic, epigenomic, proteomic data	Pan-cancer pretraining [11]

Clinical Validation Studies

Recent benchmark studies have evaluated scFMs against traditional methods in clinically relevant oncology tasks. In cancer cell identification across seven cancer types, foundation models demonstrated robust performance, particularly in capturing biologically meaningful representations that generalize to unseen data [3]. The scGraph-OntoRWR metric, which measures consistency of cell type relationships with prior biological knowledge, confirmed that scFMs successfully capture established hierarchical structures in tumor biology [3].

Application Note 2: Immunology - Resolving Immune Cell States in Inflammation and Autoimmunity

Background and Significance

The immune system comprises extraordinarily diverse cell types and states that dynamically respond to pathogens, tissue damage, and other challenges. scFMs provide powerful tools to resolve this complexity by capturing continuous differentiation trajectories and identifying novel immune cell states associated with disease [43]. These models are particularly valuable for studying immune cell development, activation, and dysfunction across physiological and pathological contexts.

Key Applications and Workflows

Antigen-Specific T Cell Profiling: Advanced scFM workflows integrate transcriptomic data with T cell receptor sequencing to link clonality with functional states. This approach enables tracking of antigen-experienced T cells across tissues and timepoints, providing insights into adaptive immune responses in infection, cancer, and autoimmunity [48].

Immune Cell Communication Mapping: Transformer-based architectures with attention mechanisms can model cell-cell communication networks by inferring ligand-receptor interactions from single-cell data. These models identify key signaling pathways that coordinate immune responses and may be dysregulated in autoimmune diseases [11] [43].

Cross-Species Immune Annotation: Models like scPlantFormer incorporate phylogenetic constraints into their attention mechanism, achieving high cross-species annotation accuracy [11]. This capability facilitates translational research by enabling knowledge transfer from model organisms to human immunology.

Technical Considerations

Immunological applications present unique technical challenges, including capturing rare antigen-specific cell populations and resolving subtle functional states. Successful implementation requires careful experimental design with sufficient cell numbers (typically 10,000-100,000 cells per sample depending on complexity) and targeted enrichment strategies for rare populations of interest [3].

Application Note 3: Rare Diseases - Identifying Cellular Phenotypes in Undiagnosed Diseases

Background and Significance

Rare diseases often involve cell-type-specific pathophysiological mechanisms that remain undetectable in bulk tissue analyses. scFMs enable the identification of subtle cellular phenotypes and dysfunctional states in rare genetic disorders, even with limited sample availability [43]. By comparing patient-derived cells to comprehensive reference atlases, these models can detect deviations from normal cellular states that may elucidate disease mechanisms.

Key Applications and Workflows

Cellular Phenotype Discovery: In undiagnosed rare diseases, scFMs can identify aberrant cell states and trajectories by comparing patient samples to large-scale reference datasets. Foundation models pretrained on millions of cells provide a normative framework for detecting statistically significant deviations in gene expression patterns [43].

Pathway Dysregulation Analysis: Multi-omic integration through scFMs enables the identification of coordinated dysregulation across molecular layers (e.g., epigenomic and transcriptomic), pinpointing affected biological pathways. This approach can reveal downstream consequences of rare genetic variants and suggest potential therapeutic targets [11] [43].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Multi-omic Tumor Microenvironment Analysis Using scGPT

Purpose: To characterize cellular heterogeneity, cell states, and cell-cell interactions in the tumor microenvironment using single-cell multi-omics data and scFM analysis.

Materials and Reagents:

• Single-cell suspension from tumor tissue (fresh or frozen)
• Chromium Single Cell Multiome ATAC + Gene Expression kit (10x Genomics)
• Library preparation reagents
• Sequencing reagents
• High-performance computing infrastructure with GPU acceleration
• scGPT software package [11]

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation and Sequencing:

  • Process tumor tissue to single-cell suspension using appropriate dissociation protocol
  • Perform simultaneous scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq using 10x Genomics Multiome kit
  • Sequence libraries following manufacturer recommendations (targeting ≥20,000 reads/cell for RNA, ≥10,000 reads/cell for ATAC)

• Data Preprocessing:

  • Perform quality control filtering (remove cells with <500 genes, >20% mitochondrial reads)
  • Normalize gene expression counts using scGPT preprocessing functions
  • Create a unified data object containing both RNA and ATAC modalities

• scGPT Model Loading and Configuration:

  • Load pretrained scGPT model (available from GitHub repository)
  • Configure model parameters for multi-omic integration
  • Set batch correction parameters if multiple samples are analyzed

• Cell Embedding and Annotation:

  • Generate joint embeddings using scGPT's multimodal integration capabilities
  • Perform cell type annotation using scGPT's zero-shot capability with reference to established immune atlases
  • Identify rare cell populations through clustering in the learned latent space

• Downstream Analysis:

  • Calculate differential expression across conditions using scGPT's built-in methods
  • Infer gene regulatory networks from integrated RNA+ATAC data
  • Model perturbation responses using in silico perturbation capabilities

Troubleshooting Tips:

• For low-quality embeddings, ensure proper data normalization and consider increasing model training iterations
• If batch effects persist, utilize scGPT's batch correction special tokens [11]
• For rare cell type identification, consider ensemble approaches with multiple foundation models

Protocol 2: Cross-Species Immune Cell Annotation with scPlantFormer

Purpose: To leverage cross-species capabilities of scFMs for immune cell annotation in non-model organisms or comparative immunology studies.

Materials and Reagents:

• Single-cell RNA-seq data from species of interest
• Reference datasets from model organisms
• High-performance computing resources
• scPlantFormer model [11]

Procedure:

• Data Preparation:

  • Process single-cell data from target species using standard preprocessing pipelines
  • Format data according to scPlantFormer input requirements
  • Include phylogenetic information if available

• Model Configuration:

  • Load pretrained scPlantFormer model
  • Configure phylogenetic constraints based on target species relationship to training data
  • Set cross-species annotation parameters

• Annotation Execution:

  • Run cell type annotation using model's cross-species capabilities
  • Validate annotations using marker gene expression
  • Perform confidence assessment for each cell assignment

• Comparative Analysis:

  • Compare immune cell composition across species
  • Identify conserved and species-specific cell states
  • Analyze differentially expressed genes within homologous cell types

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for scFM Clinical Translation

Tool/Reagent	Manufacturer/Provider	Function in Workflow	Key Considerations
Chromium Single Cell Multiome ATAC + Gene Expression	10x Genomics	Simultaneous scRNA-seq + scATAC-seq from same cell	Enables direct multi-omic integration; requires fresh nuclei [11]
CELLxGENE Discover Platform	CZ Biohub	Curated single-cell data repository	Provides >100M cells for reference; supports federated analysis [11] [43]
scGPT Software Package	GitHub Repository	Foundation model for single-cell analysis	Pretrained on 33M+ cells; supports multiple downstream tasks [11]
BioLLM Benchmarking Framework	Academic Source	Standardized evaluation of scFMs	Universal interface for comparing >15 foundation models [11]
PathOmCLIP	Academic Source	Histology-spatial transcriptomics alignment	Connects tissue morphology with gene expression patterns [11]

Visualization of Experimental Workflows

Multi-omic Data Integration Workflow

Clinical Translation Pipeline

Single-cell foundation models represent a transformative approach for clinical translation of multi-omics data in oncology, immunology, and rare diseases. By providing robust, scalable frameworks for integrating diverse molecular measurements, these models enable researchers to extract biologically meaningful and clinically actionable insights from complex cellular systems. The protocols and applications detailed in this article provide a foundation for implementing these cutting-edge computational approaches in translational research settings.

Future developments in scFMs will likely focus on enhancing model interpretability, improving scalability for ultra-large datasets, and developing standardized benchmarking frameworks [43] [3]. As these models continue to evolve, they will play an increasingly central role in bridging the gap between single-cell multi-omics innovations and clinical applications in precision medicine.

Overcoming Computational Hurdles: Best Practices for scFM Deployment and Interpretation

Technical variability, manifesting as batch effects and data quality inconsistencies, presents a fundamental challenge in single-cell multi-omics research. These non-biological variations arising from differing protocols, instruments, or sequencing centers can obscure genuine biological signals and compromise the integrity of integrative analyses [11]. Within the context of single-cell foundation models (scFMs), which are large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast single-cell datasets, mitigating these technical artifacts is paramount. scFMs leverage transformer-based architectures to learn universal representations from millions of cells, enabling diverse downstream tasks from cell type annotation to perturbation response prediction [1] [11]. However, their performance is critically dependent on the quality and consistency of their training data. This Application Note provides a structured framework for identifying, quantifying, and mitigating data quality issues and batch effects, ensuring the reliability of scFM-driven multi-omics integration.

Quantitative Evaluation of scFM Performance in Batch Effect Correction

Systematic benchmarking is essential for selecting the appropriate scFM and integration method. The following table summarizes the performance of leading scFMs in key evaluation metrics, based on a comprehensive comparative analysis using the BioLLM framework, which provides standardized APIs and evaluation protocols [49].

Table 1: Performance Benchmarking of Single-Cell Foundation Models in Zero-Shot Settings

Foundation Model	Cell Embedding Quality (Avg. Silhouette Width)	Batch Effect Correction (ASW)	Computational Efficiency (Memory & Time)	Key Strengths
scGPT	Consistently high across individual datasets [49]	Superior performance vs. PCA and other models [49]	High efficiency (Low memory & fast computation) [49]	Robust performance across all tasks; captures complex cellular features [49] [11]
Geneformer	Strong capabilities in gene-level tasks [49]	Distinguishes certain cell types but underperforms vs. PCA [49]	High efficiency (Low memory & fast computation) [49]	Effective pretraining strategies for gene-level analysis [49]
scFoundation	Strong capabilities in gene-level tasks [49]	Distinguishes certain cell types but underperforms vs. PCA [49]	Lower efficiency (High memory usage) [49]	Benefits from effective pretraining strategies [49]
scBERT	Lower performance across datasets [49]	Poor performance (Struggles with batch correction) [49]	Lower efficiency (High memory usage) [49]	Limited by smaller model size and training data [49]

The evaluation of computational efficacy and resource usage is critical for practical applications. The impact of model fine-tuning on performance is substantial, with supervised training using cell-type labels significantly enhancing the quality of cell embeddings and improving batch-effect correction capabilities [49].

Table 2: Impact of Input Gene Sequence Length on scFM Embedding Quality

Foundation Model	Correlation: Input Length vs. Embedding Quality	Practical Implication
scGPT	Strong positive correlation [49]	Longer input sequences yield more accurate biological representations [49]
Geneformer	Slight negative correlation in some datasets [49]	Minimal overall impact from input length variation [49]
scFoundation	Slight negative correlation in some datasets [49]	Minimal overall impact from input length variation [49]
scBERT	Negative correlation (Performance declines with longer sequences) [49]	Potential difficulty learning meaningful features from longer inputs [49]

Standardized Experimental Protocol for scFM-based Data Integration

This section outlines a detailed, step-by-step protocol for implementing a batch-effect-corrected multi-omics integration analysis using scFMs, incorporating the GLUE (Graph-Linked Unified Embedding) framework and the BioLLM benchmarking interface [50] [49].

The following diagram illustrates the complete experimental workflow for multi-omics data integration and batch effect correction using scFMs:

Step-by-Step Protocol

Step 1: Data Preprocessing and Quality Control

• Input Data Requirements: Collect single-cell omics data (scRNA-seq, scATAC-seq, etc.) from public repositories (e.g., GEO, CZ CELLxGENE) [25]. The CZ CELLxGENE archive provides unified access to over 100 million annotated single cells standardized for analysis [1].
• Quality Control: Implement rigorous filtering using Scanpy pipelines [25].
  • For scRNA-seq: Filter out cells with <200 genes detected and genes expressed in <3 cells. Normalize, log-transform, and select 3,000-5,000 highly variable genes [25].
  • For scATAC-seq: Binarize data, then normalize and select top 10,000 highly variable peaks [25].
• Batch Metadata Collection: Systematically compile batch annotation including sequencing platform, library preparation kit, donor information, and processing date.

Step 2: Guidance Graph Construction

• Purpose: The guidance graph explicitly models regulatory interactions across omics layers to bridge distinct feature spaces [50].
• Implementation:
  • For scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq integration, define vertices as genes and accessible chromatin regions (ATAC peaks).
  • Connect vertices with positive edges when accessible regions overlap gene bodies or proximal promoter regions [50].
  • For triple-omics integration (e.g., adding DNA methylation), link gene body mCH/mCG levels to genes via negative edges to account for their negative correlation with gene expression in neuronal cells [50].
• Robustness Consideration: GLUE demonstrates minimal performance degradation even with up to 90% corruption of regulatory interactions, ensuring robustness to imperfect prior knowledge [50].

Step 3: Model Initialization and Configuration

• Model Selection: Initialize an appropriate scFM using the BioLLM unified interface [49]. Based on benchmarking results (Table 1), scGPT is recommended for its balanced performance across tasks and efficient resource utilization.
• Key Configuration Parameters:
  • Set embedding dimensions (typically 64-128).
  • Configure attention mechanisms (bidirectional for encoder-based models like scBERT, unidirectional for decoder-based models like scGPT) [1].
  • Enable batch correction capacity by specifying batch as a decoder covariate [50].

Step 4: Adversarial Multimodal Alignment

• Process: This iterative optimization aligns cell states across omics layers while preserving biological variation [50].
• Technical Execution:
  • Employ separate variational autoencoders for each omics layer, tailored to layer-specific feature spaces [50].
  • Perform adversarial alignment guided by feature embeddings encoded from the guidance graph [50].
  • Monitor convergence using the integration consistency score, which measures alignment between integrated multi-omics space and guidance graph knowledge [50].

Step 5: Batch Effect Correction and Diagnostic Validation

• Implementation: Apply batch correction within the GLUE framework using batch as a decoder covariate to effectively correct for technical variability while preserving biological signals [50].
• Validation Metrics:
  • Calculate Average Silhouette Width (ASW) for batch mixing to quantify batch effect removal [49].
  • Use integration consistency scores to diagnose over-correction; low scores (near 0) indicate problematic integration of datasets lacking common cell states [50].
  • Visualize integrated embeddings using UMAP to confirm biological conservation and technical artifact removal [49] [50].

Step 6: Downstream Analysis and Interpretation

• Cell Type Annotation: Perform neighbor-based label transfer using integrated cell embeddings to unify annotations across omics layers [50].
• Regulatory Inference: Leverage refined guidance graphs for data-oriented regulatory inference, identifying context-specific regulatory networks [50].
• Trajectory Analysis: Apply pseudotemporal ordering algorithms to reconstructed developmental trajectories using batch-corrected embeddings [25].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources for scFM-based Integration

Category	Item/Resource	Function/Application	Specific Examples
Data Resources	Public Data Repositories	Source of standardized single-cell data for pretraining and analysis	CZ CELLxGENE [1], GEO/SRA [1], Human Cell Atlas [11], PanglaoDB [1]
Computational Tools	Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs)	Core analytical engines for multi-omics integration and batch correction	scGPT [49] [11], Geneformer [49], scBERT [49] [1]
Integration Frameworks	Multi-omics Integration Platforms	Frameworks for harmonizing diverse omics data types	GLUE (Graph-Linked Unified Embedding) [50], BioLLM (benchmarking interface) [49] [11]
Quality Control Tools	Data Preprocessing Pipelines	Standardized workflows for data filtering, normalization, and feature selection	Scanpy [25], Seurat [25]
Benchmarking Resources	Model Evaluation Platforms	Standardized frameworks for comparative performance assessment	BioLLM [49], DISCO [11]

Advanced Integration Strategies and Emerging Solutions

Multimodal Integration Architectures

For complex multi-omics integration, advanced strategies move beyond simple batch correction. The following diagram illustrates the architecture of a graph-linked integration system:

Feature Grouping for Enhanced Interpretability

The scMFG (single-cell Multi-omics integration method based on Feature Grouping) approach provides an alternative strategy that enhances model interpretability while addressing technical noise [25]. This method:

• Groups Features by Expression Patterns: Uses Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to group features with similar characteristics within each omics layer, effectively mitigating noise impact [25].
• Maintains Cross-Omics Consistency: Applies the same feature grouping approach across different omics layers, promoting comparability of diverse data types [25].
• Enables Fine-Scale Resolution: Demonstrates superior performance in identifying rare cell types and deciphering cellular heterogeneity at finer resolutions [25].

Mosaic Integration for Non-Overlapping Features

Emerging methods like StabMap address the challenge of integrating datasets with non-overlapping features through mosaic integration [11]. This approach aligns datasets measuring different feature panels by leveraging shared cell neighborhoods or robust cross-modal anchors rather than requiring strict feature overlaps, significantly enhancing data completeness in integrative analyses [11].

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and other single-cell omics technologies have revolutionized biological research by enabling the profiling of genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenomic information at unprecedented resolution. However, these technologies generate data characterized by substantial technical noise, with dropout events representing a fundamental challenge. Dropouts occur when expressed transcripts are not detected, resulting in an excess of zero values in the data matrix that do not reflect biological reality. This sparsity arises from the entire data generation process, from cell lysis through sequencing, and is compounded by the high-dimensional nature of single-cell data where the number of features (genes) far exceeds the number of observations (cells). The resulting "curse of dimensionality" obscures true biological signals and complicates downstream analysis [51].

Within the context of multi-omics integration with single-cell foundation models (scFMs), effectively addressing data sparsity becomes paramount. scFMs are large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast single-cell datasets that can be adapted for diverse downstream tasks. These transformer-based models learn fundamental principles of cellular biology from millions of cells across tissues and conditions, treating individual cells as sentences and genes or genomic features as words or tokens [1]. However, their performance depends critically on input data quality. Technical noise and batch effects mask subtle biological signals, hindering the model's ability to learn robust representations that generalize across datasets and biological contexts. Therefore, implementing appropriate imputation and normalization techniques is essential for maximizing the potential of scFMs in multi-omics integration [11].

Technical Comparison of Methods

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Single-Cell Data Imputation and Normalization Techniques

Method	Category	Key Strength	Handling of Biological Zeros	Computational Efficiency	Scalability to Large Datasets
Compositional Data Analysis (CoDA) [52]	Normalization	Scale invariance; sub-compositional coherence	Count addition schemes for zero replacement	Moderate	High (with optimized count addition)
scVGAMF [53]	Imputation	Integrates linear and non-linear features	Distinguishes true vs. false zeros via clustering	Moderate (due to dual pathways)	High (grouped processing)
RECODE/iRECODE [51]	Noise Reduction	Simultaneous technical and batch noise reduction	Preserves biological zeros via statistical modeling	High (improved algorithm)	High (demonstrated on large datasets)
SmartImpute [54]	Targeted Imputation	Focuses on biologically informative marker genes	Multi-task discriminator preserves true zeros	High (targeted approach)	Very High (>1 million cells)
Nicheformer [26]	Foundation Model	Learns spatially-aware representations	Pretraining on diverse data improves robustness	Training: High; Fine-tuning: Moderate	Very High (110M+ cells)

Table 2: Performance Metrics Across Method Categories

Method Category	Cell Clustering Accuracy	Trajectory Inference Improvement	Batch Effect Correction	Gene Expression Recovery
Compositional Normalization	Improved cluster separation [52]	Eliminates suspicious trajectories [52]	Moderate (with iRECODE) [51]	Accurate distribution shaping [52]
Deep Learning Imputation	Enhanced clustering accuracy [53]	Improved pseudo-temporal ordering [53]	Good (with integrated methods)	Captures complex relationships [53]
Statistical Noise Reduction	Preserves cell-type identities [51]	Not explicitly reported	Excellent (iRECODE) [51]	Reduces technical variance [51]
Targeted Imputation	Improved cell type annotation [54]	Enhanced trajectory inference [54]	Moderate	Focused on marker genes [54]

Detailed Methodological Protocols

Protocol 1: Compositional Data Analysis (CoDA) Normalization

Compositional Data Analysis provides a robust framework for normalizing scRNA-seq data by explicitly treating the data as relative abundances rather than absolute counts. The protocol involves transforming raw counts using log-ratio transformations after addressing the zero problem inherent in sparse single-cell data [52].

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Input: Raw UMI count matrix (cells × genes) with minimal quality filtering.

• Zero Handling using Count Addition:

  • Apply a count addition scheme such as the SGM method to replace zeros.
  • Add a small pseudocount (e.g., 1) to all measurements to enable log transformations.
  • For a more sophisticated approach, use Bayesian priors or multiplicative replacements.

• Centered Log-Ratio (CLR) Transformation:

  • For each cell, calculate the geometric mean of all gene counts.
  • Transform each gene count using the formula: CLR(gene_i) = log(count_i / geometric_mean)
  • This transformation maps compositional data from simplex space to Euclidean space.

• Downstream Analysis:

  • The CLR-transformed matrix can now be used for PCA, UMAP, and clustering.
  • For trajectory inference, use methods like Slingshot on the CLR-transformed data.

• Validation:

  • Compare cluster separation metrics against log-normalized data.
  • Assess whether suspected dropout-driven trajectories are eliminated.

Technical Notes: The CoDA framework provides scale invariance, where multiplying all counts by a constant factor does not affect results, and sub-compositional coherence, where results remain consistent when analyzing subsets of genes. The CoDAhd R package implements these transformations for high-dimensional scRNA-seq data [52].

Protocol 2: scVGAMF Imputation Workflow

scVGAMF addresses dropouts by integrating both linear and non-linear features through a combined variational graph autoencoder and non-negative matrix factorization approach [53].

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:

  • Input: Raw count matrix (cells × genes).
  • Perform logarithmic normalization.
  • Identify highly variable genes and rank them by variance stabilizing transformation.

• Cell Clustering for Zero Identification:

  • Partition highly variable genes into groups (default: 2000 genes per group).
  • Apply PCA to each gene group followed by spectral clustering.
  • Compute Silhouette coefficient scores for cluster numbers ranging from 4-15.
  • Select optimal cluster number based on highest Silhouette score.

• Similarity Matrix Construction:

  • Calculate cell similarity matrix integrating Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation, and Cosine similarity.
  • Compute gene similarity matrix using Jaccard similarity based on co-expression patterns.
  • Apply row-wise min-max normalization and symmetrization to similarity matrices.

• Feature Extraction and Imputation:

  • Apply two variational graph autoencoders (VGAEs) to capture non-linear features from cell and gene similarity matrices.
  • Perform non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) to extract linear features.
  • Integrate linear and non-linear features using a fully connected neural network.
  • Predict missing values using the integrated feature representation.

• Output and Validation:

  • Output: Imputed gene expression matrix with reduced technical zeros.
  • Validate using gene recovery analysis, cell clustering accuracy, and trajectory inference.

Technical Notes: scVGAMF's dual-pathway approach allows it to capture both linear gene co-expression patterns and complex non-linear relationships, providing more accurate imputation than single-strategy methods. The method maintains computational efficiency through gene grouping and parallel processing [53].

Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: Single-Cell Data Processing Workflow for Foundation Model Integration

Diagram 2: scVGAMF Architecture for Linear and Non-linear Feature Integration

Research Reagent and Computational Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
CoDAhd R Package [52]	Software	High-dimensional CoDA transformations	CLR normalization for scRNA-seq prior to scFM training
scVGAMF Python Implementation [53]	Software	Integrated linear/non-linear imputation	Dropout correction for enhanced cellular representation learning
RECODE Platform [51]	Software	Dual technical and batch noise reduction	Preprocessing for cross-dataset scFM pretraining
SmartImpute Framework [54]	Software	Targeted marker gene imputation	Efficient large-scale data processing for scFMs
Nicheformer Pretrained Models [26]	Foundation Model	Spatially-aware cell representations	Transfer learning for spatial transcriptomics tasks
CZ CELLxGENE Discover [11] [1]	Data Resource	Curated single-cell datasets	Training data for scFM development and benchmarking
BioLLM Framework [11]	Benchmarking Platform	Standardized scFM evaluation	Comparative assessment of imputation methods for scFMs

Effective handling of data sparsity and dropout events is not merely a preprocessing concern but a fundamental requirement for advancing multi-omics integration with single-cell foundation models. The methods detailed in this application note—from compositional data approaches to sophisticated imputation algorithms—provide robust solutions for transforming sparse, noisy single-cell data into reliable inputs for scFM training and application.

As the field evolves, several emerging trends warrant attention. First, the integration of spatial context, as exemplified by Nicheformer, highlights the importance of preserving spatial relationships when imputing missing values. Second, the development of targeted approaches like SmartImpute suggests a move away from comprehensive imputation toward strategically focusing on biologically informative features. Finally, the creation of standardized benchmarking platforms like BioLLM will be essential for objectively evaluating how different sparsity-handling techniques impact downstream scFM performance across diverse biological contexts [26] [11] [54].

The optimal approach to handling data sparsity will likely involve method selection tailored to specific experimental designs and analytical goals. For large-scale atlas projects aiming to train foundation models from scratch, comprehensive methods like iRECODE that simultaneously address technical and batch noise may be preferable. For researchers applying pretrained scFMs to new datasets, targeted approaches like SmartImpute may offer the best balance of performance and computational efficiency. As single-cell technologies continue to evolve toward higher throughput and multimodal profiling, the development of integrated sparsity-handling solutions that seamlessly interface with scFMs will remain an active and critical area of computational research.

The emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a paradigm shift in computational biology, enabling unprecedented analysis of cellular heterogeneity and function by learning from millions of single-cell transcriptomes [1]. These models, typically built on transformer architectures, demonstrate remarkable capabilities in downstream tasks including zero-shot cell type annotation, multi-omic integration, and in silico perturbation modeling [11]. However, their massive scale—with models like scGPT pretrained on over 33 million cells—introduces significant computational challenges that demand sophisticated resource management strategies [1] [11].

The fundamental tension in scFM research lies in balancing model complexity against infrastructure constraints. More complex models with increased parameters generally achieve superior performance on biological tasks but require computational resources that may exceed institutional capabilities [55]. Effective resource management therefore becomes critical not merely for cost efficiency but for enabling scientifically rigorous research that can progress within practical limitations. This application note provides detailed protocols for navigating these challenges while maintaining scientific validity in multi-omics integration research.

Computational Landscape of Single-Cell Foundation Models

Model Architecture and Scaling Properties

Single-cell foundation models predominantly utilize transformer architectures, which employ self-attention mechanisms to model complex dependencies across genes and cells [1]. The computational burden of these models scales approximately quadratically with sequence length (number of genes or features), making feature selection a crucial optimization point. Current scFMs process gene expression profiles by converting each cell into an ordered sequence of genes, typically ranked by expression value, with the entire dataset constituting the training corpus [1].

Table 1: Representative Single-Cell Foundation Models and Their Computational Requirements

Model	Architecture	Pretraining Corpus	Key Capabilities	Reported Infrastructure Demands
scGPT	Transformer decoder	33M+ cells	Multi-omic integration, perturbation prediction	Training: 8×A100 GPUs (80GB), 5-7 days [11]
scBERT	BERT-like encoder	10M+ cells	Cell type annotation	Fine-tuning: 1×V100 GPU (16GB), 2-4 hours [1]
Nicheformer	Graph transformer	57M dissociated + 53M spatial cells	Spatial context prediction	Not specified; presumed substantial [11]
scPlantFormer	Lightweight transformer	1M plant cells	Cross-species annotation	Designed for reduced computational footprint [11]
CellPatch	Heuristic patching	Not specified	Multiple downstream tasks	Ultra-low computational costs [11]

Infrastructure Bottlenecks in scFM Workflows

The end-to-end scFM workflow encounters multiple infrastructure constraints across different phases:

• Data Preprocessing: Single-cell RNA sequencing data requires substantial preprocessing (quality control, normalization, batch correction) before model input, creating memory bottlenecks with large datasets [1] [19].
• Model Training: Self-supervised pretraining on millions of cells constitutes the most computationally intensive phase, requiring days to weeks on high-performance GPU clusters [1].
• Inference and Fine-tuning: Applying pretrained models to downstream tasks demands efficient memory management, particularly for large-scale perturbation studies or multi-omic integration [55].
• Data Storage and Retrieval: The sheer volume of single-cell data (with repositories like CZ CELLxGENE hosting >100 million cells) creates significant storage and I/O challenges [1] [11].

Optimization Frameworks for Resource-Constrained Environments

Model-Centric Optimization Strategies

Quantization reduces the numerical precision of model parameters, converting 32-bit floating-point values to 16-bit or 8-bit representations. This strategy can decrease memory usage by up to 50% and improve inference speed through optimized hardware operations [55]. The implementation protocol involves:

• Post-Training Quantization: Apply to pretrained models with minimal accuracy loss

  • Use framework tools (PyTorch, TensorFlow) for automatic quantization
  • Calibrate with representative single-cell data to maintain dynamic ranges
  • Validate on target tasks to ensure performance preservation

• Quantization-Aware Training: Incorporate quantization effects during fine-tuning

  • Simulate lower precision during forward passes
  • Maintain higher precision for weight updates
  • Typically preserves better accuracy than post-training approaches

Pruning systematically removes redundant parameters based on importance criteria. The structured pruning protocol for transformer-based scFMs:

• Importance Scoring: Evaluate parameters using magnitude-based or gradient-based metrics
• Iterative Pruning: Remove lowest-scoring weights (10-20% per iteration) with fine-tuning between steps
• Architecture-Aware Approach: Target specific components (attention heads, feed-forward layers) based on ablation studies

Gradient Checkpointing strategically trades compute for memory by recomputing intermediate activations during backward passes rather than storing them. This can reduce memory consumption by 60-70% with a modest 20-30% increase in computation time [55]. Implementation requires activating checkpointing in framework-specific configurations during training.

Data-Centric Optimization Methods

Effective data management significantly impacts computational efficiency in scFM pipelines:

Gene Filtering and Feature Selection: Rather than using all ~20,000 human genes, employ variance-based or biological-knowledge filtering to reduce sequence length. This directly alleviates the quadratic memory burden of attention mechanisms.

Progressive Resolution Training: Initially train on subsets of data (e.g., 1 million cells) before scaling to full datasets. This provides faster iteration cycles during experimental phases.

Table 2: Data Optimization Techniques for scFM Workflows

Technique	Implementation Protocol	Expected Resource Reduction	Considerations
Hierarchical gene filtering	1. Filter low-variance genes2. Remove technical artifacts3. Retain biologically informative features	40-60% reduced memory usage	Potential loss of rare cell type markers
Sequential batch loading	1. Partition dataset by biological source2. Implement custom data loader3. Aggregate gradients across batches	Enables training beyond GPU memory limits	Increased I/O overhead; requires efficient prefetching
Mixed-precision training	1. Enable AMP (Automatic Mixed Precision)2. Maintain FP32 for sensitive operations3. Dynamically scale loss	50% memory reduction; 2-3x speedup	Potential instability with very large models
Distributed data parallel training	1. Replicate model across GPUs2. Split batches across devices3. Synchronize gradients	Near-linear scaling with multiple GPUs	Communication overhead; requires high-speed interconnects

Infrastructure-Level Optimization

Elastic Object Storage solutions (e.g., Cloudian HyperStore, Amazon S3) provide scalable data lakes optimized for AI workloads, seamlessly integrating with ML frameworks while offering cost-effective storage for massive single-cell datasets [56].

Multi-Cloud Strategies leverage different cloud providers for various workflow stages, using spot instances for experimental phases and reserved instances for production workloads. However, this introduces complexity in data transfer and management across platforms [55].

Containerization and Orchestration with Kubernetes enables efficient resource allocation through specialized operators for GPU scheduling and automatic scaling based on workload demands [57].

Experimental Protocols for Resource-Aware Model Development

Protocol 1: Efficient Pretraining of scFMs

Objective: Establish a standardized protocol for pretraining single-cell foundation models under computational constraints.

Materials and Reagents:

• Hardware: Multi-GPU system (minimum 4×GPUs with 16GB+ memory each)
• Software: PyTorch or TensorFlow with distributed training extensions
• Data: Processed single-cell expression matrices (compatible with Hugging Face format)

Procedure:

• Data Preparation
  • Format expression matrices using established tokenization approaches (gene ranking or binning)
  • Partition data into training (90%) and validation (10%) sets
  • Implement data loader with automatic memory-mapping for large datasets

• Model Configuration

  • Select appropriate transformer dimensions based on available resources:
    • Base model (recommended for limited resources): 6 layers, 512 hidden dimensions, 8 attention heads
    • Large model (for adequate resources): 12 layers, 1024 hidden dimensions, 16 attention heads
  • Configure optimizer with learning rate warmup and cosine decay

• Distributed Training

  • Initialize process group using NCCL backend
  • Wrap model with DistributedDataParallel
  • Implement gradient accumulation to maintain effective batch size

• Checkpointing and Recovery

  • Save model state every 10,000 training steps
  • Maintain validation loss history for early stopping
  • Implement automatic resumption from latest checkpoint

Validation Metrics:

• Monitor training and validation loss curves for convergence
• Evaluate on minimal downstream tasks (cell type annotation) to ensure biological relevance
• Track computational efficiency (samples/second, memory usage)

Protocol 2: Memory-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Downstream Tasks

Objective: Adapt pretrained scFMs for specific applications within limited resource environments.

Materials and Reagents:

• Input: Pretrained scFM checkpoint
• Hardware: Single GPU with 12GB+ memory
• Software: Task-specific data loaders and evaluation scripts

Procedure:

• Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Setup
  • Implement Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) for transformer layers
  • Configure adapter rank based on task complexity (rank 4-16 typically sufficient)
  • Freeze base model parameters and only train adapter weights

• Gradient Optimization

  • Enable gradient checkpointing for memory-intensive layers
  • Use mixed-precision inference if supported by hardware
  • Implement gradient clipping to maintain stability

• Task-Specific Head Integration

  • Design lightweight prediction heads for target tasks
  • Utilize multi-task learning when addressing multiple applications
  • Employ progressive unfreezing for sensitive fine-tuning

• Inference Optimization

  • Apply dynamic quantization for faster prediction
  • Implement batch processing for throughput optimization
  • Cache intermediate representations for iterative experimentation

Validation Approach:

• Compare performance against full fine-tuning baseline
• Assess computational requirements (memory, time)
• Verify biological plausibility of predictions

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for scFM Experimentation

Category	Item	Function	Implementation Notes
Software Frameworks	PyTorch / TensorFlow	Core deep learning infrastructure	Enable CUDA support for GPU acceleration
	Hugging Face Transformers	Transformer model implementations	Adapt for single-cell data structures
	Scanpy / AnnData	Single-cell data management	Efficient handling of large expression matrices
	Dask / Ray	Distributed computing	Parallelize preprocessing and analysis
Computational Resources	NVIDIA GPUs (A100/H100)	High-throughput model training	Multi-node configurations for largest models
	High-speed interconnects (InfiniBand)	Distributed training communication	Minimize synchronization overhead
	Large-scale object storage	Data lake for single-cell repositories	Geo-distributed access for collaborative teams
	Kubernetes cluster	Container orchestration	Automated scaling and resource management
Methodological Components	Pre-trained model weights	Transfer learning initialization	Community-shared checkpoints (e.g., BioLLM)
	Optimized data loaders	Efficient data feeding	Memory-mapped arrays for large datasets
	Gradient accumulation	Virtual batch size expansion	Enables large batches on limited GPUs
	Mixed-precision training	Computational efficiency	Automatic or manual precision management

Effective computational resource management is not merely an engineering concern but a fundamental enabler of robust single-cell foundation model research. The protocols and strategies outlined in this application note provide a roadmap for balancing model complexity with infrastructure constraints while maintaining scientific rigor. As the field progresses toward even larger models and more complex multi-omic integrations, the development of resource-aware methodologies will become increasingly critical for democratizing access to cutting-edge analytical capabilities across the research community.

Future directions should focus on standardized benchmarking of efficiency-accuracy tradeoffs, development of biologically-informed model compression techniques, and creation of more accessible interfaces that abstract computational complexity without sacrificing analytical power. Through deliberate attention to resource management strategies, the single-cell genomics community can accelerate discoveries while maintaining sustainable computational practices.

The advent of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) has revolutionized the analysis of cellular heterogeneity by generating rich latent embeddings from high-dimensional omics data [1]. These embeddings compress complex gene expression patterns into lower-dimensional representations that capture essential biological states. However, a significant challenge persists: the "black box" nature of these models often obscures the biological meaning encoded within their embeddings [58]. The ability to translate these mathematical representations into actionable biological insights—such as identifying key regulator genes, understanding cellular responses to perturbation, and mapping disease mechanisms—is crucial for advancing biomedical discovery and therapeutic development [59]. This application note outlines structured methodologies and protocols for enhancing the interpretability of scFMs, providing researchers with a framework to bridge the gap between computational output and biological understanding within multi-omics integration research.

Foundational Concepts of Latent Embeddings

In single-cell analysis, latent embeddings are low-dimensional representations learned by deep learning models that capture the essential biological variation present in high-dimensional omics data. The core premise, known as the Latent Space Hypothesis, posits that diverse medical and biological data types are projections of a single underlying physiological reality [59]. Within this framework, an individual cell's state occupies a specific point in the latent space, disease progression forms a trajectory, and therapeutic interventions can be represented as directional vectors [59].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Latent Embeddings in Single-Cell Analysis

Characteristic	Description	Biological Analogy
Dimensionality	Reduced representation (typically 32-512 dimensions) of high-dimensional gene expression data (10,000+ genes)	Summary of key cellular features
Distance Metric	Proximity indicates similarity in cellular state	Developmental lineage relationship
Trajectory	Path through space showing temporal progression	Differentiation or disease progression pathway
Cluster Structure	Grouping of cells with similar embeddings	Cell type or state identity

The interpretability challenge arises because these embeddings are initially purely mathematical constructs. While they powerfully capture patterns in the data, the mapping between the numerical vectors and biological mechanisms is not intrinsically obvious. The methods detailed in the following sections provide systematic approaches to annotate, contextualize, and validate these embeddings to extract meaningful biological narratives.

Computational Methods for Interpretation

Factor Decomposition and Annotation

Matrix factorization techniques identify distinct patterns of co-varying gene expression within latent embeddings, which often correspond to specific biological programs. The Single-Cell Interpretable Residual Decomposition (sciRED) protocol provides a robust framework for this analysis [60].

Table 2: Key Metrics for Evaluating Factorization Results with sciRED

Metric	Interpretation	Optimal Value
Number of Entangled Covariates	Covariates matched to multiple factors	Lower values preferred
Factors Split Across Covariates	Single biological signal distributed across multiple factors	Lower values preferred
Covariate Levels Without Factors	Biological signals not captured by factorization	Lower values preferred
Runtime	Computational efficiency	Dataset dependent

Experimental Protocol: sciRED Factor Analysis

• Input Preparation: Format the cell-by-gene count matrix and prepare covariate tables (e.g., sample metadata, cell type labels, experimental conditions).
• Confounding Effect Removal: Regress out known technical factors (e.g., batch effects, library size) using Poisson generalized linear models to obtain Pearson residuals.
• Matrix Factorization: Perform Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the residuals followed by varimax rotation to enhance interpretability.
• Factor-Covariate Matching: Apply an ensemble classifier (logistic regression, linear classifier/AUC, decision tree, XGBoost) to compute Factor-Covariate-level Association (FCA) scores.
• Interpretation of Unexplained Factors: Evaluate factors not matching known covariates using Factor Interpretability Scores (FIS) based on separability, effect size, and homogeneity metrics.
• Biological Validation: Examine top genes and perform pathway enrichment analysis on factor loadings to assign biological meaning.

Incorporation of Biological Priors

Integrating established biological knowledge during model training significantly enhances the interpretability of resulting embeddings. The scTFBridge framework exemplifies this approach by incorporating transcription factor (TF) binding information to guide the learning of regulatory principles [61].

Experimental Protocol: Biologically-Guided Latent Space Construction

• Prior Knowledge Curation: Compile TF-motif binding affinities from established databases (e.g., JASPAR, CIS-BP).
• Model Architecture Design: Implement a variational autoencoder with disentangled latent spaces, separating modality-shared and modality-private components.
• Mutual Information Minimization: Apply Cross Mutual Information (CMI) constraints to force common regulatory information into shared latent components.
• Latent Space Alignment: Use contrastive learning to align shared embeddings from different omics modalities (e.g., RNA-seq and ATAC-seq).
• TF Activity Constraint: Apply weight regularization in the decoder network to link specific latent variables to TF regulatory activities.
• Regulatory Network Inference: Compute SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values to quantify RE and TF contributions to target gene expression.

Quantitative Interpretability Assessment

Systematic evaluation of interpretability requires standardized metrics beyond qualitative assessment. The scE2TM framework introduces a comprehensive benchmarking approach with 10 quantitative metrics to assess interpretation quality [58].

Experimental Protocol: Interpretability Benchmarking

• Topic Consistency Analysis: Measure alignment between identified cellular topics and known cell type annotations.
• Topic Coherence Scoring: Calculate semantic similarity between top genes within topics using established coherence measures.
• Topic Diversity Assessment: Quantify the uniqueness of topics based on their gene loadings across different biological processes.
• Pathway Enrichment Concordance: Evaluate the statistical significance of pathway enrichments for topic-associated genes.
• Cross-Validation: Apply metrics across multiple datasets and experimental conditions to assess robustness.
• Comparative Analysis: Benchmark performance against baseline methods (e.g., PCA, NMF, scVI) to establish relative improvement.

Diagram 1: Computational interpretability framework.

Experimental Protocols for Biological Validation

Cell Type-Specific Gene Discovery

The scKAN framework employs Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks with knowledge distillation to identify marker genes and functional gene sets specific to particular cell types [62].

Experimental Protocol: Cell Type-Specific Gene Importance Scoring

• Teacher Model Fine-tuning: Fine-tune a pre-trained scFM (e.g., scGPT) on target dataset with cell type labels.
• Knowledge Distillation: Train scKAN student model to mimic teacher predictions while learning gene-cell relationships through activation curves.
• Importance Score Calculation: Extract edge scores from KAN layers that quantify each gene's contribution to specific cell type classification.
• Marker Gene Validation: Compare high-scoring genes against established marker databases (e.g., CellMarker) using precision-recall metrics.
• Functional Enrichment Analysis: Perform Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) on importance-ranked gene lists to identify overrepresented pathways.
• Experimental Validation: Select top candidates for orthogonal validation using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or immunofluorescence staining.

In Silico Perturbation Analysis

Foundation models enable simulation of cellular responses to genetic and chemical perturbations, providing mechanistic insights without costly experimental screens.

Experimental Protocol: Perturbation Response Prediction

• Baseline Embedding: Project control cells into latent space to establish baseline distribution.
• In Silico Perturbation: Manipulate input features to simulate gene knockout/overexpression or drug treatment.
• Trajectory Modeling: Calculate vector displacement between baseline and perturbed embeddings to quantify direction and magnitude of response.
• Differential Analysis: Identify genes most responsive to perturbation by analyzing changes in their reconstructed expression values.
• Pathway Impact Scoring: Map perturbation vectors to known biological pathways using specialized enrichment methods.
• Experimental Correlation: Compare predictions with ground truth perturbation data (e.g., CRISPR screens) to validate accuracy.

Diagram 2: In silico perturbation workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Example Applications
scGPT	Foundation Model	Large-scale pretraining on 33M+ cells for diverse downstream tasks	Cell type annotation, multi-omic integration, perturbation modeling [11]
Geneformer	Foundation Model	Context-aware attention learning on 30M transcriptomes	Network inference, disease mechanism identification [13]
SHAP	Explainability Library	Quantifies feature contribution to model predictions	Regulatory network inference, prioritization of key genes [61]
CellRank	Trajectory Analysis	Models cellular dynamics and state transitions	Differentiation trajectories, drug response prediction [59]
SCENIC+	Regulatory Inference	Derives gene regulatory networks from multi-omics data	TF activity analysis, cis-regulatory element mapping [61]
CZ CELLxGENE	Data Repository	Provides standardized access to 100M+ annotated cells	Model pretraining, benchmarking, cross-study validation [1]

Application to Drug Discovery and Development

Translating latent embeddings into therapeutic insights requires specialized approaches that connect cellular states to clinical outcomes and treatment opportunities.

Experimental Protocol: Drug Repurposing Pipeline

• Disease-State Embedding: Generate latent representations for cells from diseased tissues and appropriate controls.
• Differential Vector Calculation: Compute embedding vectors that capture the transition from healthy to diseased states.
• Compound Library Screening: Project drug perturbation profiles from reference datasets (e.g., LINCS L1000) into the same latent space.
• Counter-Directional Matching: Identify compounds whose perturbation vectors oppose the disease vector.
• Binding Affinity Prediction: Use molecular docking simulations (e.g., AutoDock Vina) to assess predicted binding stability of candidate drugs.
• Multi-Scale Validation: Integrate evidence from cell-based assays, animal models, and clinical records to prioritize candidates.

The interpretability of single-cell foundation models is not merely a technical concern but a fundamental requirement for their meaningful application in biomedical research. The methods outlined in this application note—spanning factor decomposition, biological prior integration, quantitative assessment, and experimental validation—provide a comprehensive framework for translating latent embeddings into biological insights. As the field progresses, the tight integration of interpretable AI with multi-omics data will accelerate the discovery of disease mechanisms and therapeutic strategies, ultimately bridging the gap between computational models and clinical impact.

The emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a paradigm shift in multi-omics research, enabling unprecedented resolution in modeling cellular heterogeneity, developmental trajectories, and disease mechanisms. Frameworks including scGPT (pretrained on over 33 million cells), scPlantFormer, and Nicheformer demonstrate exceptional capabilities in cross-species annotation, in silico perturbation modeling, and gene regulatory network inference [11]. However, the rapid innovation in this domain has precipitated significant ecosystem fragmentation, characterized by inconsistent evaluation metrics, unreproducible pretraining protocols, and limited model interoperability [11]. These challenges severely hinder cross-study validation, reproducible benchmarking, and the translation of computational insights into clinical applications. This document provides detailed application notes and standardized protocols to navigate these fragmentation challenges, with a specific focus on multi-omics data integration using scFMs for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

Current Landscape and Quantifiable Challenges

Ecosystem fragmentation in scFMs manifests primarily through technical variability across experimental platforms, divergent analytical pipelines, and the absence of standardized benchmarking frameworks. A systematic review of 86 seminal studies reveals that inconsistent evaluation practices affect over 70% of comparative analyses in multi-omics integration studies [11]. The table below quantifies key fragmentation challenges across the scFM development lifecycle.

Table 1: Quantifiable Ecosystem Fragmentation Challenges in scFM Research

Challenge Domain	Specific Manifestation	Impact Metric	Proposed Mitigation
Evaluation Metrics	Inconsistent accuracy reporting (F1, AUC, accuracy) without standardized train/test splits	>65% of studies use non-comparable validation frameworks [11]	Adoption of unified benchmark suites (BioLLM)
Pretraining Protocols	Variable data preprocessing, normalization, and gene set inclusion	Up to 40% performance variance attributed to protocol differences [11]	Standardized pretraining corpora with documented filtering
Multimodal Integration	Divergent alignment strategies for transcriptomic, epigenomic, and proteomic data	58% of tools limited to specific modality pairs [7]	Mosaic integration approaches (StabMap)
Batch Effect Correction	Inconsistent handling of technical variation across protocols	72% of cross-study applications show batch effect propagation [11]	Biology-preserving integration methods (sysVI)
Model Interoperability	Framework-specific model architectures and output formats	Limited compatibility between >15 foundation models [11]	Standardized APIs and containerization

Standardized Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Benchmarking for scFM Evaluation

Objective: Establish standardized evaluation metrics and procedures for assessing scFM performance on multi-omics integration tasks.

Materials:

• Reference datasets: DISCO (100+ million cells) or CZ CELLxGENE Discover [11]
• Computational environment: Minimum 64GB RAM, GPU with 16GB VRAM
• Software: BioLLM framework, scGPT, scPlantFormer, StabMap, MOFA+ [11] [7]

Procedure:

• Data Curation and Partitioning
  • Curate multi-omics reference data encompassing transcriptomics (scRNA-seq), epigenomics (scATAC-seq), and proteomics (CITE-seq)
  • Implement stratified splitting by cell type, donor, and experimental batch (70/15/15 train/validation/test)
  • Document complete metadata including sequencing depth, platform, and processing parameters

• Model Training and Fine-tuning

  • Initialize models with available pretrained weights (e.g., scGPT-33M)
  • Apply consistent fine-tuning protocols across compared models:
    • Learning rate: 1e-5 with linear decay
    • Batch size: 32 (adjusted for GPU memory constraints)
    • Early stopping with patience of 10 epochs
  • Maintain identical computational budgets across comparisons

• Performance Assessment

  • Cell Type Annotation: Report macro F1-score, balanced accuracy, and per-class precision/recall
  • Multi-omics Integration: Calculate batch integration scores (iLISI, cLISI) and biological conservation metrics (ASW)
  • Perturbation Modeling: Quantify Pearson correlation between predicted and observed differential expression
  • Regulatory Inference: Compute AUPRC for transcription factor-target gene recovery from ground truth networks

• Statistical Analysis

  • Perform paired t-tests across multiple random seeds with Bonferroni correction
  • Report confidence intervals for all performance metrics
  • Conduct ablation studies on critical hyperparameters

Expected Outcomes: Standardized performance profiles enabling direct cross-model comparison and identification of optimal architectures for specific multi-omics tasks.

Protocol 2: Reproducible Pretraining for Cross-Species Generalization

Objective: Establish standardized protocols for pretraining scFMs to maximize cross-species generalization and transfer learning performance.

Materials:

• Training data: Curated multi-species atlases (Arabidopsis thaliana, human, mouse)
• Software: scPlantFormer, scGPT, Nicheformer architectures
• Hardware: High-performance computing cluster with multiple GPUs (minimum 4×A100)

Procedure:

• Data Harmonization
  • Implement uniform quality control: Minimum 200 genes/cell, <20% mitochondrial reads
  • Apply consistent normalization: Log(CP10K) for transcriptomics, TF-IDF for epigenomics
  • Harmonize gene annotations across species using OrthoDB or Ensembl Compara

• Architecture-Specific Configuration

  • scGPT: 12 layers, 768 hidden dimensions, 12 attention heads
  • scPlantFormer: Integrate phylogenetic constraints into attention mechanism
  • Nicheformer: Graph transformer architecture for spatial context modeling

• Pretraining Regimen

  • Employ masked gene modeling with 15% masking probability
  • Implement contrastive learning across modalities (transcriptome-epigenome)
  • Apply multimodal alignment (PathOmCLIP) for spatial transcriptomics integration [11]
  • Train for minimum 100,000 steps with gradient checkpointing

• Transfer Learning Assessment

  • Evaluate zero-shot cell type annotation accuracy across taxonomic distances
  • Quantify few-shot learning performance with limited target data (10-100 cells/type)
  • Assess perturbation response prediction accuracy on held-out species

Troubleshooting:

• Address overfitting through increased model regularization and data augmentation
• Mitigate batch effects with domain adaptation techniques (DANN)
• Optimize memory usage through gradient accumulation and mixed precision

Visualization of Standardized Workflows

Standardized scFM Evaluation Workflow

Multi-omics Integration Strategies

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for scFM Multi-omics Integration

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Platform	Primary Function	Application Context
Foundation Models	scGPT [11]	Generative pretrained transformer for single-cell data	Cross-species annotation, perturbation modeling
	scPlantFormer [11]	Lightweight FM with phylogenetic constraints	Plant single-cell omics, cross-species integration
	Nicheformer [11]	Graph transformer for spatial cellular niches	Spatial context prediction across 53M+ cells
Integration Tools	StabMap [11] [7]	Mosaic integration for non-overlapping features	Robust alignment under feature mismatch
	MOFA+ [7]	Factor analysis for multi-omics integration	mRNA, DNA methylation, chromatin accessibility
	GLUE [7]	Graph-linked unified embedding	Triple-omic integration using prior knowledge
	Seurat v4/v5 [7]	Weighted nearest neighbor integration	mRNA, protein, chromatin, spatial data
Benchmarking Platforms	BioLLM [11]	Universal interface for benchmarking scFMs	Standardized evaluation of >15 foundation models
	DISCO [11]	Federated analysis platform	Access to 100M+ cells for validation
Data Resources	TCGA [19]	Multi-omics cancer atlas	RNA-Seq, DNA-Seq, miRNA, methylation, RPPA
	CZ CELLxGENE [11]	Curated single-cell data portal	Standardized single-cell datasets
	CPTAC [19]	Clinical proteomic tumor analysis	Proteomics data corresponding to TCGA cohorts

Addressing ecosystem fragmentation in single-cell foundation models requires concerted community effort to establish standardized evaluation metrics, reproducible pretraining protocols, and interoperable model architectures. The protocols and resources outlined herein provide a framework for navigating these challenges, enabling more robust and translatable multi-omics integration in biomedical research. Future directions should prioritize the development of multimodal knowledge graphs, collaborative benchmarking initiatives, and ethical frameworks for clinical translation. By adopting standardized approaches, the research community can accelerate the translation of scFM advancements into mechanistic biological insights and precision medicine applications.

Benchmarking scFM Performance: Validation Frameworks and Comparative Analysis

The advent of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a paradigm shift in computational biology, enabling the integrative analysis of multi-omics data at unprecedented scale and resolution. These models, including scGPT, Geneformer, and scPlantFormer, leverage transformer-based architectures pretrained on millions of single-cell transcriptomes to learn universal representations of cellular states [1] [11]. However, the rapid proliferation of scFMs has created an urgent need for standardized evaluation metrics and protocols that can rigorously assess model performance across three critical dimensions: classification accuracy for cell type annotation and clinical prediction, biological relevance of learned representations, and generalizability across diverse datasets and biological contexts. This document establishes comprehensive application notes and experimental protocols for evaluating scFMs within multi-omics research, providing researchers with standardized methodologies to benchmark model performance, validate biological insights, and ensure robust translation to therapeutic applications.

Core Classification Metrics and Their Applications

Fundamental Performance Metrics

Classification accuracy in scFM evaluation extends beyond simple correctness to encompass nuanced measures that account for dataset imbalances and task-specific priorities. Standard metrics derived from confusion matrices provide complementary insights into model behavior across different biological scenarios. The foundation of classification assessment begins with four fundamental outcomes: True Positives (TP), True Negatives (TN), False Positives (FP), and False Negatives (FN), which form the basis for all subsequent metric calculations [63].

Table 1: Core Classification Metrics for scFM Evaluation

Metric	Formula	Biological Interpretation	Optimal Use Cases
Accuracy	(TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN)	Overall correctness in balanced datasets	Initial model screening; balanced cell type distributions
Precision	TP/(TP+FP)	Reliability of positive predictions	Critical when false discoveries are costly (e.g., biomarker identification)
Recall (Sensitivity)	TP/(TP+FN)	Completeness in identifying true positives	Essential when missing positive cases has high cost (e.g., rare cell detection)
F1 Score	2×(Precision×Recall)/(Precision+Recall)	Harmonic mean balancing precision and recall	Imbalanced datasets; overall performance measure when both FP and FN matter
Specificity	TN/(TN+FP)	Ability to identify true negatives	When correctly ruling out negatives is crucial (e.g., healthy vs diseased classification)

Accuracy provides a straightforward measure of overall correctness but becomes misleading in imbalanced datasets where one class dominates [64] [65]. For example, in a dataset where 95% of cells belong to common types and only 5% represent rare populations, a model that simply predicts the majority class would achieve 95% accuracy while failing completely at rare cell identification. Precision measures the reliability of positive predictions, critical for applications like biomarker identification where false discoveries incur significant validation costs [63]. Recall (sensitivity) quantifies how completely a model identifies all true positives, making it essential for rare cell detection where missing positive cases has high biological cost [64].

The F1 score, as the harmonic mean of precision and recall, provides a balanced metric that penalizes extreme values in either direction [66] [65]. This is particularly valuable for scFM evaluation where both false positives (misassigning cell identities) and false negatives (failing to detect true cell states) can distort biological interpretations. The harmonic mean property ensures that the F1 score only achieves high values when both precision and recall are strong, making it superior to accuracy for most single-cell classification tasks where inherent class imbalances exist across cell populations [63] [66].

Metric Selection Guidelines for Biological Applications

Different biological applications demand specific metric prioritization based on their inherent requirements and cost structures:

• Rare Cell Type Identification: Prioritize recall to minimize false negatives, as missing rare populations (e.g., cancer stem cells, rare immune subsets) compromises biological discovery. Accept moderate precision to ensure comprehensive detection [64] [63].
• Clinical Diagnostic Applications: Emphasize precision to ensure that positive predictions (e.g., malignant cells, treatment-resistant populations) are highly reliable, minimizing false alarms that could lead to inappropriate clinical interventions [63].
• Cell Atlas Construction: Balance precision and recall using F1 score, as both incorrectly annotated cells and missing cell types distort the comprehensive mapping of cellular heterogeneity [13].
• Drug Sensitivity Prediction: Optimize for recall in identifying sensitive populations while maintaining precision for resistant groups, as the costs differ significantly for these error types in therapeutic development [13].

Assessing Biological Relevance and Interpretability

Novel Biological Metrics for scFM Evaluation

Moving beyond standard classification metrics, assessing the biological relevance of scFM representations requires specialized metrics that connect computational outputs to established biological knowledge. Recent benchmarking efforts have introduced innovative ontology-informed metrics that evaluate whether learned representations capture meaningful biological relationships consistent with prior knowledge [13].

Table 2: Specialized Metrics for Biological Relevance Assessment

Metric	Computation Method	Biological Basis	Interpretation Guidelines
scGraph-OntoRWR	Random walk with restart on cell ontology graph	Measures consistency between embedding distances and ontological relationships	Higher scores indicate better alignment with established biological hierarchies
Lowest Common Ancestor Distance (LCAD)	Ontological proximity between misclassified cell types	Quantifies severity of annotation errors based on cellular lineage	Smaller distances indicate biologically plausible confusions (e.g., T-cell subtypes)
Roughness Index (ROGI)	Landscape roughness analysis in latent space	Measures smoothness of cell-state transitions in embeddings	Smother landscapes indicate better capture of continuous biological processes

The scGraph-OntoRWR metric introduces a knowledge-driven evaluation approach by measuring the consistency between cell type relationships captured by scFMs and established biological hierarchies in cell ontologies [13]. This metric employs random walks with restart on ontology graphs to quantify how well distances in the model's latent space reflect known biological relationships, providing a direct measure of biological plausibility beyond mere classification accuracy. Similarly, the Lowest Common Ancestor Distance (LCAD) metric assesses the severity of cell type misclassifications by measuring the ontological proximity between incorrectly predicted and true cell types [13]. This recognizes that confusing closely related cell types (e.g., CD4+ and CD8+ T cells) is less problematic than distant misclassifications (e.g., neuron vs. hepatocyte), providing a biologically nuanced error assessment.

The Roughness Index (ROGI) evaluates the smoothness of cellular manifolds in latent representations, quantifying how well scFMs capture continuous biological processes like differentiation trajectories [13]. Models that generate smoother landscapes typically generalize better and provide more biologically meaningful representations, as they reflect the continuous nature of cellular transitions rather than creating artificial discontinuities.

Experimental Protocol: Biological Relevance Assessment

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Biological Evaluation of scFM Embeddings

Objective: Systematically evaluate the biological relevance of scFM-generated cell embeddings using ontology-informed metrics.

Materials and Reagents:

• scFM model (e.g., scGPT, Geneformer, scPlantFormer)
• Reference single-cell dataset with high-quality cell type annotations
• Cell ontology resource (e.g., Cell Ontology, CL)
• Computational environment with BioLLM framework [8]

Procedure:

• Data Preparation:
  • Obtain benchmark dataset with validated cell type annotations (e.g., AIDA v2 from CELLxGENE [13])
  • Filter to include only cell types with established ontological relationships
  • Generate cell embeddings using scFM in zero-shot mode (no fine-tuning)

• scGraph-OntoRWR Computation:

  • Map cell type annotations to Cell Ontology classes
  • Construct k-nearest neighbor graph from scFM embeddings (k=15)
  • Perform random walks with restart (RWR) on both embedding graph and ontology graph
  • Calculate similarity between stationary distributions: Score = 1 - Jensen-Shannon divergence
  • Repeat for multiple random seeds and compute mean ± SEM

• LCAD Assessment:

  • Perform cross-validation with cell type classification
  • For each misclassification, query Cell Ontology for lowest common ancestor
  • Calculate ontological distance between true and predicted types
  • Aggregate results as mean LCAD across all errors

• ROGI Analysis:

  • Compute pairwise distances between cells in latent space
  • Calculate local variance in cell-state transitions
  • Fit smoothness parameters using Gaussian process regression
  • Compare ROGI values across different scFMs

Interpretation Guidelines:

• scGraph-OntoRWR > 0.7 indicates strong biological alignment
• LCAD < 3 suggests biologically reasonable confusion patterns
• Lower ROGI values (< 0.1) indicate smoother, more biologically plausible manifolds

Evaluating Model Generalizability and Robustness

Cross-Domain Generalization Assessment

The true value of scFMs emerges from their ability to generalize across diverse biological contexts, technical platforms, and species boundaries. Evaluating generalizability requires rigorous benchmarking across multiple dimensions, including cross-species annotation, technical batch integration, and zero-shot transfer to novel biological conditions [13] [11]. Recent comprehensive benchmarks have demonstrated that no single scFM consistently outperforms others across all tasks, emphasizing the need for task-specific model selection [13].

Table 3: Generalizability Assessment Framework

Test Category	Evaluation Datasets	Key Metrics	Performance Expectations
Cross-Species Annotation	Human-mouse aligned atlases; Plant cross-species	Accuracy, F1, LCAD	>85% accuracy for scGPT/scPlantFormer [11]
Technical Batch Integration	Multi-protocol, multi-center datasets	ASW, ARI, scGraph-OntoRWR	Batch mixing while preserving biological variation
Zero-Shot Novel Cell Type Detection	Datasets with held-out cell types	Anomaly detection AUC, clustering metrics	Effective novelty detection with minimal false positives
Cross-Tissue Generalization	Multi-tissue atlases	Cell type annotation accuracy	Consistent performance across tissue contexts
Clinical Translation	Cancer cell identification, drug sensitivity	Precision, recall, F1	Clinical-grade reliability for diagnostic applications

Cross-species generalization represents a particularly challenging test of biological representation quality. Models like scPlantFormer have demonstrated 92% cross-species annotation accuracy in plant systems by integrating phylogenetic constraints into their attention mechanisms [11]. This capability suggests that well-pretrained scFMs can capture fundamental biological principles that transcend species boundaries, enabling knowledge transfer from model organisms to human biology.

Technical batch integration assessment evaluates how well scFMs remove non-biological technical variation while preserving meaningful biological signals. This requires benchmarking across datasets generated with different protocols, sequencing technologies, and laboratory conditions [13]. Effective batch integration should maximize biological resolution while minimizing technical artifacts, as measured by metrics like Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) for clustering preservation and scGraph-OntoRWR for biological consistency.

Experimental Protocol: Generalizability Benchmarking

Protocol 2: Cross-Domain Generalization Assessment

Objective: Systematically evaluate scFM performance across diverse biological contexts and technical conditions.

Materials and Reagents:

• BioLLM framework for standardized model access [8]
• Multiple benchmark datasets spanning species, tissues, and technologies
• Computational resources for large-scale inference
• Evaluation metrics suite (Accuracy, F1, ARI, ASW, scGraph-OntoRWR)

Procedure:

• Dataset Curation:
  • Select minimum of 5 datasets representing different biological contexts [13]
  • Include cross-species pairs (e.g., human-mouse orthologous cell types)
  • Incorporate technical replicates with known batch effects
  • Include novel cell types not seen during pretraining

• Zero-Shot Evaluation:

  • Generate embeddings without task-specific fine-tuning
  • Perform cell type annotation using reference-based mapping
  • Calculate accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 scores
  • Compute scGraph-OntoRWR for biological consistency

• Cross-Species Assessment:

  • Map orthologous cell types between species
  • Train classifier on source species, test on target species
  • Calculate transfer accuracy and LCAD for misclassifications
  • Compare against random and baseline performance

• Batch Integration Analysis:

  • Apply scFM to multi-batch datasets
  • Quantify batch mixing using Average Silhouette Width (ASW)
  • Assess biological preservation using clustering metrics (ARI)
  • Evaluate runtime and computational efficiency

• Novelty Detection:

  • Systematically hold out specific cell types during training
  • Test ability to identify novel populations as outliers
  • Calculate AUC for novelty detection performance
  • Assess false positive rates for known cell types

Interpretation Guidelines:

• Cross-species accuracy >80% indicates strong biological generalization
• Batch integration should achieve ASW <0.2 while maintaining ARI >0.8
• Effective novelty detection requires AUC >0.85 with false positive rate <0.1
• Runtime and memory requirements should be feasible for target applications

Standardized Experimental Protocols for scFM Evaluation

Comprehensive Benchmarking Workflow

Implementing standardized evaluation protocols requires systematic workflows that address the multifaceted nature of scFM assessment. The following integrated protocol provides a comprehensive framework for benchmarking scFMs across classification accuracy, biological relevance, and generalizability dimensions.

Protocol 3: Integrated scFM Benchmarking Pipeline

Objective: Execute complete evaluation of scFM performance across all critical dimensions using standardized metrics and procedures.

Materials and Reagents:

• BioLLM framework with integrated scFMs (scGPT, Geneformer, scFoundation, etc.) [8]
• Reference datasets: AIDA v2, cross-species atlases, multi-batch datasets [13]
• Cell ontology resources and biological knowledge graphs
• High-performance computing environment with adequate GPU resources

Procedure:

• Experimental Setup:
  • Initialize BioLLM framework and load target scFMs
  • Configure evaluation parameters and metric definitions
  • Allocate computational resources based on model requirements

• Classification Accuracy Assessment:

  • Execute cell type annotation on reference datasets
  • Calculate confusion matrices and derived metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, F1)
  • Perform statistical testing for performance differences
  • Generate classification reports with confidence intervals

• Biological Relevance Evaluation:

  • Compute scGraph-OntoRWR scores for ontological alignment
  • Calculate LCAD for misclassification analysis
  • Assess latent space quality using ROGI and visualization
  • Compare biological metrics against baseline methods

• Generalizability Testing:

  • Execute cross-species and cross-tissue validation
  • Assess batch integration performance
  • Test zero-shot capabilities on novel data
  • Evaluate computational efficiency and scalability

• Results Integration and Reporting:

  • Aggregate metrics across all evaluation dimensions
  • Generate performance rankings using non-dominated sorting [13]
  • Create comprehensive benchmarking report
  • Provide model selection recommendations based on use case

Quality Control Measures:

• Implement cross-validation with multiple random seeds
• Compare against established baselines (Seurat, Harmony, scVI) [13]
• Validate biological findings against literature knowledge
• Ensure computational reproducibility through containerization

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for scFM Evaluation

Resource Category	Specific Tools & Platforms	Primary Function	Access Methods
Standardized Frameworks	BioLLM [8]	Unified interface for scFM access and evaluation	Python package, standardized APIs
Data Resources	CELLxGENE Discover [11], AIDA v2 [13]	Curated single-cell datasets for benchmarking	Public repositories, standardized formats
Ontology Resources	Cell Ontology (CL), Gene Ontology (GO)	Biological knowledge for metric computation	OBO format, web services
Baseline Methods	Seurat [13], Harmony [13], scVI [13]	Traditional benchmarks for performance comparison	R/Python packages, published pipelines
Evaluation Metrics	scGraph-OntoRWR [13], LCAD [13], ROGI [13]	Specialized biological relevance assessment	Custom implementation, benchmark code
Visualization Tools	UCSC Cell Browser, embedding projectors	Latent space exploration and quality assessment	Web interfaces, Python libraries

The BioLLM framework has emerged as a critical tool for standardized scFM evaluation, providing unified APIs that eliminate architectural and coding inconsistencies across different models [8]. This framework enables researchers to seamlessly switch between scFMs while maintaining consistent evaluation protocols, significantly accelerating comparative benchmarking. Integration with data resources like CELLxGENE Discover ensures access to harmonized datasets with consistent annotations, while ontology resources provide the biological ground truth necessary for advanced metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR and LCAD.

The evolving landscape of single-cell foundation models demands rigorous, standardized evaluation methodologies that encompass classification accuracy, biological relevance, and cross-domain generalizability. The protocols and metrics outlined in this document provide researchers with comprehensive tools for systematic scFM assessment within multi-omics integration research. As the field advances, several emerging trends will shape future evaluation standards: the development of unified benchmarking platforms, the integration of multimodal data in assessment protocols, the establishment of clinical-grade validation standards, and the creation of specialized metrics for temporal and spatial omics integration. By adopting these standardized evaluation frameworks, researchers can make informed decisions in model selection, drive methodological improvements, and accelerate the translation of scFM capabilities into biological discoveries and therapeutic advancements.

Multi-omics data integration represents a critical frontier in computational biology, enabling researchers to uncover complex molecular interactions that define cellular heterogeneity and disease pathogenesis. The integration of diverse data modalities—including genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, and proteomics—presents significant computational challenges due to the high dimensionality, technical noise, and heterogeneous nature of these datasets. Within the broader context of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) research, which leverages large-scale pretrained neural networks to unify biological understanding, traditional integration methods provide essential foundational approaches and benchmarking standards [11] [1].

This application note provides a detailed comparative analysis of two prominent multi-omics integration strategies: MOFA+ (Multi-Omics Factor Analysis+), a statistical framework based on factor analysis, and MoGCN (Multi-omics Graph Convolutional Network), a deep learning approach utilizing graph convolutional networks. We focus on their application to cancer subtype classification, specifically breast invasive carcinoma (BRCA), providing experimental protocols, performance benchmarks, and practical implementation guidelines to assist researchers in selecting appropriate integration methods for their specific research objectives.

Background and Theoretical Foundations

MOFA+: Statistical Framework for Multi-omics Integration

MOFA+ is a statistically rigorous generalization of principal component analysis (PCA) to multi-omics data. It is an unsupervised factor analysis model that infers a set of latent factors to capture the principal sources of variation across multiple data modalities [67] [68]. The model employs a Bayesian framework with Automatic Relevance Determination (ARD) priors to automatically infer the number of relevant factors and encourage sparsity, facilitating biological interpretation [67]. MOFA+ builds upon group Factor Analysis principles and uses computationally efficient variational inference to handle large-scale datasets, including single-cell multi-omics data with complex experimental designs involving multiple sample groups [67].

A key advantage of MOFA+ is its ability to disentangle variation that is shared across multiple omics layers from variation that is specific to individual modalities. The model can handle different data types (continuous, binary, count) through appropriate likelihood functions and is robust to missing data, making it suitable for real-world applications where complete multi-omics profiling may not be feasible for all samples [68].

MoGCN: Deep Learning Approach for Multi-omics Integration

MoGCN represents a deep learning-based framework that integrates multi-omics data using Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) for cancer subtype analysis [69] [70]. Unlike MOFA+, MoGCN incorporates both feature information and network topology through a two-stage approach: first, it uses autoencoders for dimensionality reduction and feature extraction from each omics modality; second, it constructs a Patient Similarity Network (PSN) using Similarity Network Fusion (SNF) to capture complex nonlinear relationships between patients across different omics layers [69].

The GCN architecture then combines these two components—the reduced feature representations and the fused patient network—to perform cancer subtype classification. This approach allows MoGCN to leverage both the molecular features and the graph structure of patient relationships, potentially capturing more complex biological patterns than linear methods [70]. The model also offers interpretability through feature importance scores and network visualization, addressing a common criticism of deep learning approaches in biomedical applications [69].

Comparative Performance Analysis

Quantitative Performance Metrics

A recent comprehensive comparison of MOFA+ and MoGCN evaluated both methods on the same dataset of 960 breast cancer patient samples from TCGA, incorporating three omics layers: host transcriptomics, epigenomics, and shotgun microbiome data [71] [72]. The study employed multiple evaluation criteria, including clustering quality indices, classification performance using linear and nonlinear machine learning models, and biological relevance of identified features through pathway enrichment analysis.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of MOFA+ and MoGCN on BRCA Subtype Classification

Evaluation Metric	MOFA+	MoGCN	Experimental Details
F1-Score (Nonlinear Model)	0.75	Not Reported	Logistic Regression with 5-fold CV [71]
F1-Score (Linear Model)	0.71	Not Reported	Support Vector Classifier with linear kernel [71]
Relevant Pathways Identified	121	100	Transcriptomics-driven pathway enrichment [71]
Key Pathways	Fc gamma R-mediated phagocytosis, SNARE pathway	Not Specified	Related to immune response and tumor progression [71]
Clustering Performance (Calinski-Harabasz Index)	Higher	Lower	Higher values indicate better clustering [71]
Clustering Performance (Davies-Bouldin Index)	Lower	Higher	Lower values indicate better clustering [71]

Biological Relevance and Pathway Analysis

Beyond quantitative performance metrics, the biological interpretability of multi-omics integration methods is crucial for generating actionable insights. MOFA+ demonstrated superior performance in identifying biologically relevant pathways in breast cancer subtype classification [71]. The 121 pathways identified by MOFA+ included key processes such as Fc gamma R-mediated phagocytosis and the SNARE pathway, which offer insights into immune responses and tumor progression mechanisms [71] [72].

MoGCN also demonstrated capability in extracting significant features from each omics layer and providing candidate functional molecules for further biological analysis [69] [70]. The network visualization capabilities of MoGCN offer clinically intuitive diagnostics, potentially enhancing translational applications. However, in direct comparison, MOFA+ identified a greater number of relevant pathways and achieved higher classification accuracy for breast cancer subtypes [71].

Experimental Protocols

Data Collection and Preprocessing

Protocol 1: TCGA Data Acquisition and Processing

• Data Source: Download breast invasive carcinoma (BRCA) datasets from TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) via cBioPortal or UCSC Xena browser [71] [69].
• Omic Modalities: Collect molecular profiling data including:
  • Host transcriptomics (RNA-seq)
  • Epigenomics (DNA methylation arrays)
  • Microbiome data (shotgun sequencing) [71]
  • Alternatively, for proteomic integration: Reverse Phase Protein Array (RPPA) data from TCPA portal [69]
• Batch Effect Correction:
  • Apply ComBat method through Surrogate Variable Analysis (SVA) package for transcriptomics and microbiomics data [71]
  • Implement Harman method for methylation data to remove batch effects [71]
• Quality Control: Filter out features with zero expression in >50% of samples [71]
• Data Normalization: Normalize each omics dataset appropriately for respective technologies (e.g., log transformation for RNA-seq) [69]

MOFA+ Implementation Protocol

Protocol 2: Statistical Integration with MOFA+

• Software Installation: Install MOFA2 package in R or mofapy2 in Python [73]
• Data Configuration: Structure multi-omics data into a MOFA object with defined views (omics types) and groups (if multiple sample groups) [67]
• Model Training:
  • Set training options: 400,000 iterations with appropriate convergence threshold [71]
  • Select number of factors automatically or manually based on variance explained (e.g., minimum 5% variance in at least one data type) [71]
  • Enable GPU acceleration if available for large datasets [67]
• Feature Selection:
  • Extract top features based on absolute loadings from latent factors explaining highest shared variance [71]
  • Standardize to top 100 features per omics layer for comparative analysis [71]
• Downstream Analysis:
  • Calculate variance explained per factor and per view
  • Perform sample clustering using factor values
  • Correlate factors with clinical annotations
  • Conduct pathway enrichment on high-weight genes [68]

MoGCN Implementation Protocol

Protocol 3: Deep Learning Integration with MoGCN

• Environment Setup: Install MoGCN from GitHub repository (https://github.com/Lifoof/MoGCN) [69] [74]
• Autoencoder Implementation:
  • Configure separate encoder-decoder pathways for each omics type
  • Set architecture parameters: hidden layer with 100 neurons, learning rate of 0.001 [71]
  • Train with multimodal loss function combining reconstruction errors from all omics types [69]
• Patient Similarity Network Construction:
  • Apply Similarity Network Fusion (SNF) to create fused patient network
  • Integrate similarity networks from each omics modality [69]
• GCN Training:
  • Input fused patient network and latent features from autoencoder
  • Implement GCN architecture with appropriate layer configuration
  • Train using 10-fold cross-validation with balanced class weights [69]
• Feature Importance Analysis:
  • Extract feature importance scores by multiplying encoder weights by feature standard deviation [71]
  • Select top 100 features per omics layer based on importance scores [71]

Methodological Workflows

MOFA+ Analytical Workflow: Statistical Integration Pipeline

MoGCN Analytical Workflow: Deep Learning Integration Pipeline

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Multi-omics Integration

Resource Name	Type	Function/Purpose	Implementation Details
MOFA2 Package	R/Python Package	Statistical multi-omics integration using factor analysis	Available on Bioconductor (R) or PyPI (Python) [73]
MoGCN	Python Framework	Deep learning-based integration using graph convolutional networks	Available at https://github.com/Lifoof/MoGCN [69] [74]
TCGA BRCA Data	Reference Dataset	Breast cancer multi-omics benchmark data	Access via cBioPortal or UCSC Xena browser [71] [69]
Similarity Network Fusion (SNF)	Algorithm	Patient similarity network construction from multi-omics data	Integrated in MoGCN workflow [69]
ComBat	Batch Effect Correction Tool	Removal of technical variation across batches	Implemented via SVA package in R [71]
Autoencoder Architecture	Neural Network Model	Nonlinear dimensionality reduction for multi-omics data	Custom implementation in MoGCN with 100-neuron hidden layer [71] [69]

Discussion and Research Applications

Context within Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs) Research

The comparative analysis of MOFA+ and MoGCN provides valuable insights for the developing field of single-cell foundation models (scFMs). While scFMs represent a paradigm shift toward large-scale pretrained models capable of zero-shot transfer learning across diverse biological contexts [11] [1], traditional methods like MOFA+ and MoGCN continue to offer advantages in specific research scenarios.

MOFA+'s statistical rigor and interpretability make it particularly valuable for hypothesis-driven research where understanding specific biological mechanisms is paramount. Its factor-based approach provides directly interpretable outputs that can be correlated with clinical variables or experimental conditions [67] [68]. In contrast, MoGCN's deep learning architecture may better capture complex nonlinear relationships in large, heterogeneous datasets, potentially offering advantages for predictive modeling tasks in precision oncology applications [69] [70].

Guidelines for Method Selection

Based on the comparative analysis, we recommend the following guidelines for researchers selecting multi-omics integration methods:

• Choose MOFA+ when: Working with moderately-sized datasets (<100,000 samples), prioritizing biological interpretability, requiring robust handling of missing data, or needing to identify shared versus modality-specific variation [71] [67] [68].

• Choose MoGCN when: Analyzing complex nonlinear relationships in larger datasets, patient similarity network analysis is relevant to research questions, or deep learning-based feature extraction is needed for downstream predictive tasks [69] [70].

• Consider hybrid approaches: As scFM research advances, integrating traditional methods like MOFA+ as preprocessing steps or interpretability layers within larger foundation model pipelines may offer optimal balance between performance and biological insight [11] [1].

This application note provides a comprehensive comparison of statistical (MOFA+) versus deep learning (MoGCN) approaches for multi-omics integration, with specific application to breast cancer subtype classification. MOFA+ demonstrated superior performance in classification accuracy and biological interpretability in direct comparison studies, achieving an F1-score of 0.75 and identifying 121 relevant pathways compared to 100 pathways identified by MoGCN [71].

Both methods offer distinct advantages and can be selected based on specific research objectives, dataset characteristics, and analytical priorities. As single-cell foundation models continue to evolve, traditional integration methods will likely maintain relevance for specific applications while also informing the development of more sophisticated integrative frameworks. The experimental protocols and implementation guidelines provided herein offer researchers practical resources for applying these methods to their multi-omics research challenges.

Single-cell multi-omics technologies have revolutionized cellular analysis by enabling comprehensive exploration of cellular heterogeneity, developmental trajectories, and disease mechanisms at unprecedented resolution [11]. The emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs)—large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast datasets—has further transformed the analysis of high-dimensional, multimodal single-cell data [1]. These models, originally developed for natural language processing, now serve as transformative tools for decoding cellular complexity in biological systems [11]. This application note provides a detailed framework for validating the real-world performance of scFMs and multi-omics integration methods across three critical therapeutic areas: infectious diseases, oncology, and vaccine development. We present structured case studies, experimental protocols, and analytical workflows to guide researchers in assessing the operational capabilities of these advanced computational tools in biologically relevant contexts.

Performance Benchmarking Framework

Key Performance Metrics for scFM Validation

Table 1: Core Performance Metrics for Single-Cell Foundation Model Validation

Metric Category	Specific Metrics	Therapeutic Relevance	Acceptance Criteria
Cell Type Identification	Cluster purity (ARI), Rare cell detection rate, Cross-species annotation accuracy	Vaccine development (immune cell profiling), Oncology (tumor microenvironment)	ARI >0.85, Rare cell recall >0.75 [75]
Multimodal Integration	Integration LISI, Batch correction ASW, Biological conservation	Infectious disease (host-pathogen mapping), Oncology (multi-omic regulation)	iLISI >1.5 (mixing), bASW >0.7 (biology) [25]
Predictive Performance	Perturbation response AUC, Developmental trajectory accuracy, Gene expression imputation RMSE	Vaccine development (immune response prediction), Oncology (treatment modeling)	AUC >0.85, Trajectory accuracy >80% [11]
Computational Efficiency	Training time (hours), Inference latency, Memory footprint (GB)	All applications (scalability to atlas-scale data)	<24h training on standard GPU [1]

Experimental Design for Cross-Therapeutic Validation

Rigorous validation of scFMs requires standardized datasets spanning multiple therapeutic domains. The following datasets serve as optimal benchmarks for performance validation:

• Oncology: Human bone marrow mononuclear cells (13 batches, 10X Genomics) with well-annotated cell types including rare populations [25]
• Infectious Disease: Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from COVID-19 patients with paired transcriptomic and epigenomic profiles
• Vaccine Development: Lymph node specimens with B cell lymphoma sequencing data capturing immune cell dynamics [25]

For each therapeutic area, we recommend a minimum of 3 independent datasets with known ground truth annotations to ensure robust statistical evaluation. Performance should be assessed across increasing data complexities (10K to >1M cells) to evaluate scalability [11].

Case Study Applications

Oncology: Tumor Microenvironment Deconvolution

Experimental Protocol 1: High-Resolution Tumor Heterogeneity Mapping

Objective: Validate scFM capability to identify rare cell populations and cellular states within the tumor microenvironment.

Materials:

• Fresh-frozen tumor specimens (lymph node with B-cell lymphoma) [25]
• 10x Genomics Multiome (RNA+ATAC) platform
• Reference annotations: Malignant B-cells, T-cells, Macrophages, Stromal cells

Methods:

• Data Preprocessing: Process raw sequencing data using Cell Ranger ARC (v2.0.0) with standard parameters
• Quality Control: Filter cells with >200 gene/peak expressions, mitochondrial content <20%, and doublet score <0.25 [25]
• Model Application:
  • Apply scGPT foundation model pretrained on 33 million cells [11]
  • Implement zero-shot cell type annotation using predefined marker genes
  • Perform in silico perturbation to identify drug-sensitive subpopulations
• Validation: Compare model predictions with flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry results from matched samples

Table 2: Oncology-Specific Reagent Solutions

Reagent/Resource	Function	Specifications
10x Genomics Multiome Kit	Simultaneous RNA+ATAC profiling	Catalog #: 1000285, Cell throughput: 10,000
scGPT Model Weights	Pre-trained foundation model	33M cell pretraining, HuggingFace Repository: scGPT-base-v1.0
CZ CELLxGENE Discover	Reference data atlas	>100M cells, standardized annotations [11]
BioLLM Benchmarking	Performance evaluation	15+ foundation models, standardized metrics [11]

Infectious Disease: Host-Pathogen Interaction Analysis

Experimental Protocol 2: Multi-omic Profiling of Infection Response

Objective: Characterize coordinated transcriptomic and epigenomic changes during host-pathogen interactions using multimodal scFMs.

Materials:

• PBMCs from infected vs. healthy donors (minimum n=5/group)
• SHARE-seq protocol for simultaneous RNA and chromatin accessibility profiling [25]
• Pathogen-specific antigen stimulation (e.g., viral peptides)

Methods:

• Sample Preparation:
  • Isolate PBMCs using Ficoll density gradient centrifugation
  • Perform SHARE-seq library preparation following manufacturer protocol
  • Include spike-in controls for technical variance normalization
• Multimodal Integration:
  • Apply scMFG feature grouping integration method [25]
  • Implement MOFA+ component to capture shared variability across omics layers
  • Validate integration quality using modality-specific marker conservation
• Dynamic Response Modeling:
  • Utilize Nicheformer architecture to model spatial context of immune activation [11]
  • Infer gene regulatory networks using scGPT GRN inference capabilities
  • Predict cytokine signaling pathways altered during infection

Figure 1: Infectious Disease Multi-omics Workflow for host-pathogen interaction analysis

Vaccine Development: Immune Response Profiling

Experimental Protocol 3: Longitudinal Immune Monitoring

Objective: Track antigen-specific immune cell dynamics and maturation following vaccination using cross-temporal scFM analysis.

Materials:

• Paired blood and lymph node samples pre-/post-vaccination (days 0, 7, 28)
• 10x Genomics Feature Barcoding for surface protein expression
• Antigen-specific MHC multimers for rare population enrichment

Methods:

• Time-Series Data Collection:
  • Process samples at each timepoint using standardized single-cell protocols
  • Include hashtag oligos for sample multiplexing and batch effect correction
  • Enrich antigen-specific B and T cells using magnetic bead separation
• Trajectory Analysis:
  • Apply scGPT perturbation modeling to predict immune cell fate decisions [11]
  • Reconstruct B-cell maturation trajectories using RNA velocity
  • Identify key transcriptional regulators of antibody class switching
• Cross-species Validation:
  • Utilize scPlantFormer cross-species capabilities (92% annotation accuracy) [11]
  • Validate findings in murine vaccination models
  • Correlate single-cell signatures with serological response measures

Integrated Analysis Workflow

Unified Multi-omics Processing Pipeline

Figure 2: Unified Multi-omics Analysis Pipeline showing the integrated workflow from raw data to therapeutic application

Performance Optimization Strategies

To achieve optimal scFM performance across therapeutic applications, we recommend the following evidence-based strategies:

• Data Preprocessing Harmonization:

  • Implement consistent normalization (scanpy) across all datasets [25]
  • Select 3,000-5,000 highly variable genes for RNA and 10,000 peaks for ATAC data [25]
  • Apply scVI-based batch correction when integrating multiple datasets [11]

• Model Selection Guidelines:

  • For cell type annotation: scGPT (zero-shot) or scPlantFormer (cross-species) [11]
  • For spatial context: Nicheformer (57M dissociated + 53M spatial cells) [11]
  • For multimodal integration: scMFG (feature grouping) or StabMap (mosaic integration) [11] [25]

• Interpretability Enhancement:

  • Apply attention mechanism analysis to identify key regulatory genes [1]
  • Utilize gradient-based feature importance scoring
  • Validate biological findings with orthogonal assays (CITE-seq, flow cytometry)

Discussion and Outlook

The validation framework presented here demonstrates that scFMs consistently achieve robust performance across diverse therapeutic domains, with cross-species annotation accuracy exceeding 90% in optimized models [11]. However, several challenges remain for widespread clinical implementation, including technical variability across platforms, limited model interpretability, and gaps in translating computational insights into clinical applications [11] [1].

Future development should focus on creating standardized benchmarking datasets specific to each therapeutic area, enhancing model interpretability through attention mechanism visualization, and establishing regulatory-grade validation protocols for clinical decision support. The integration of foundation models with emerging spatial proteomics and metabolomics technologies will further expand their utility in precision medicine initiatives.

As these computational tools mature, they hold tremendous promise for bridging the gap between single-cell multi-omics measurements and actionable biological understanding across infectious diseases, oncology, and vaccine development.

Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represent a transformative advance in computational biology, enabling the integrative analysis of multi-omics data at unprecedented scale. These models, pretrained on vast single-cell datasets, demonstrate remarkable capabilities for downstream tasks including cell type annotation, perturbation prediction, and gene regulatory network inference [1] [14]. However, their translation into reliable biological insights and drug discovery applications requires rigorous validation of robustness across two critical dimensions: cross-species generalization and cross-platform consistency.

Cross-species integration faces the fundamental challenge of "species effect"—where global transcriptional differences arising from millions of years of evolution can overshadow conserved biological signals [76]. Simultaneously, technical variability across sequencing platforms, protocols, and computational environments introduces "batch effects" that can confound biological interpretation [1] [14]. This Application Note provides detailed protocols and benchmarking frameworks to quantitatively assess scFM robustness across these dimensions, enabling researchers to build more reliable models for translational research.

Benchmarking Cross-Species Integration Strategies

Quantitative Benchmarking of Integration Algorithms

Systematic benchmarking reveals significant variation in performance across cross-species integration strategies. The BENGAL pipeline has evaluated 28 combinations of gene homology mapping methods and integration algorithms across 16 biological tasks, providing comprehensive performance metrics [76].

Table 1: Performance Metrics for Top Cross-Species Integration Algorithms

Integration Algorithm	Species Mixing Score	Biology Conservation Score	Integrated Score	Optimal Use Case
scANVI	0.71	0.82	0.77	Evolutionarily conserved cell types
scVI	0.69	0.81	0.76	Large-scale atlas integration
SeuratV4 (CCA/RPCA)	0.68	0.79	0.74	Mammalian tissue comparisons
SAMap	N/A	N/A	Alignment: 0.89	Distant species, whole-body atlases
LIGER UINMF	0.65	0.75	0.71	Integration with unshared features

Gene Homology Mapping Strategies

The accuracy of cross-species integration fundamentally depends on appropriate gene homology mapping. Performance varies significantly based on evolutionary distance and data quality [76].

Table 2: Gene Homology Mapping Strategies and Applications

Mapping Strategy	Key Features	Performance Context	Limitations
One-to-one orthologs	Conservative mapping using single ortholog pairs	Optimal for closely related species	High information loss for distant species
Including in-paralogs	Incorporates one-to-many/many-to-many orthologs	Beneficial for evolutionarily distant species	Requires confidence scoring
SAMap BLAST graph	De novo reciprocal BLAST, iterative updating	Superior for challenging homology annotation	Computationally intensive

Experimental Protocol: Cross-Species Integration Workflow

Protocol 1: BENGAL Cross-Species Integration Pipeline

• Input Data Curation

  • Perform quality control and cell ontology annotation separately for each species dataset
  • Ensure consistent cell type labeling across species using standardized ontologies
  • Filter low-quality cells and genes using platform-specific thresholds [76]

• Gene Homology Mapping

  • Map orthologous genes using ENSEMBL multiple species comparison tool
  • concatenate raw count matrices from different species
  • Evaluate three mapping approaches: one-to-one orthologs only; inclusion of one-to-many/many-to-many orthologs with high expression; inclusion of orthologs with strong homology confidence [76]

• Data Integration

  • Apply integration algorithms (e.g., scANVI, scVI, SeuratV4) to concatenated matrix
  • For SAMap: run standalone workflow with de novo reciprocal BLAST [76]
  • For LIGER UINMF: include unshared features alongside mapped genes [76]

• Output Assessment

  • Calculate species mixing metrics:
    • Average of scaled batch correction metrics (LISI, iLISI, etc.)
    • Alignment score: percentage of cross-species neighbors [76]
  • Calculate biology conservation metrics:
    • Average of scaled biology conservation metrics (cLISI, etc.)
    • ALCS: Accuracy Loss of Cell type Self-projection [76]
  • Compute integrated score: weighted average (40% species mixing, 60% biology conservation) [76]
  • Perform cross-species annotation transfer using multinomial logistic classifier [76]

Cross-Platform Robustness Assessment

Technical Variability and Batch Effect Correction

Cross-platform generalization requires addressing technical variability arising from different sequencing technologies, protocols, and computational environments. Foundation models must demonstrate robustness to these non-biological variations while preserving meaningful biological signals [1] [14].

Key Challenges in Cross-Platform Generalization:

• Platform-specific technical noise and systematic biases
• Feature space mismatch (different gene panels, epigenetic features)
• Variation in data sparsity and distributional characteristics
• Protocol-specific batch effects that can confound biological interpretation [14]

Experimental Protocol: Cross-Platform Validation Framework

Protocol 2: Cross-Platform Model Robustness Assessment

• Data Compilation

  • Curate datasets measuring similar biological systems across different platforms (e.g., 10X Genomics, Smart-seq2, sci-RNA-seq)
  • Include both positive controls (known biological differences) and negative controls (technical replicates)
  • For multi-omics integration: compile paired transcriptomic-epigenetic datasets (e.g., scRNA-seq + scATAC-seq) [77]

• Model Pretraining and Adaptation

  • Pretrain foundation models on large, diverse corpora (e.g., CZ CELLxGENE, Human Cell Atlas) [1]
  • Apply parameter-efficient fine-tuning approaches (e.g., LoRA, adapters) to platform-specific data [14]
  • Implement cross-modal alignment strategies for multi-omics integration [77]

• Robustness Evaluation

  • Assess performance drift across platforms using established metrics
  • Quantify batch effect correction using kBET, LISI, and other integration metrics [14]
  • Evaluate information loss using biology conservation metrics [76]

• Noise Resilience Testing

  • Systematically introduce Gaussian noise across a range of Signal-to-Noise Ratios (SNRs) [78]
  • Monitor performance degradation and identify failure modes
  • Compare ML and DL model robustness under noisy conditions [78]

Table 3: Cross-Platform Robustness Evaluation Metrics

Evaluation Dimension	Quantitative Metrics	Acceptance Threshold	Application Context
Platform Consistency	Coefficient of variation < 15%	≤ 0.15	Cross-technology comparisons
Batch Effect Correction	LISI score > 0.7	≥ 0.7	Multi-protocol integration
Noise Resilience	Accuracy retention at 10 dB SNR	≥ 90% baseline	Real-world data applications
Information Preservation	ALCS < 0.1	≤ 0.1	Biological signal conservation

Advanced Applications in Drug Discovery

Target Identification and Validation

Cross-species scFMs enable robust target identification by distinguishing evolutionarily conserved pathways from species-specific biology. This approach is particularly valuable for prioritizing targets with higher translational potential [79] [80].

Case Example: Schizophrenia Target Discovery

• Laser-capture microdissection identified rare parvalbumin interneurons
• scRNA-seq revealed druggable transcriptome of this subpopulation
• Cross-species comparison identified GluN2D as conserved therapeutic target
• Multi-omics integration validated target relevance in human pathophysiology [81]

Biomarker Discovery and Therapeutic Response

Multimodal scFMs can predict therapeutic response and identify biomarkers by integrating transcriptomic, epigenomic, and proteomic data across species and platforms [79].

Protocol 3: Cross-Species Biomarker Validation

• Treatment Response Profiling

  • Generate single-cell multi-omics data from model organisms and human systems treated with therapeutic compounds
  • Measure transcriptomic, epigenomic, and proteomic changes at single-cell resolution [79]

• Cross-Species Alignment

  • Apply top-performing integration algorithms (e.g., scANVI, SAMap) to align treated cells across species
  • Identify conserved and divergent response pathways [76]

• Biomarker Extraction

  • Identify conserved gene regulatory networks associated with positive treatment response
  • Validate biomarker specificity using cross-species annotation transfer [76]
  • Confirm protein-level expression using spatial multi-omics approaches [82]

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource	Function	Application Context
BENGAL Pipeline	Benchmarking cross-species integration strategies	Algorithm selection for specific biological questions [76]
CZ CELLxGENE	Curated single-cell data repository	Foundation model pretraining [1]
scGPT	Transformer-based foundation model	Cross-species cell annotation, perturbation modeling [14]
SAMap	Whole-body atlas alignment	Distant species integration with challenging homology [76]
PathOmCLIP	Histology-transcriptomics alignment	Spatial multi-omics integration [14]
LIGER UINMF	Integrative non-negative matrix factorization	Multi-dataset integration with unshared features [76]
scPlantFormer	Plant-specific foundation model	Cross-species plant biology applications [14]

Robust cross-species and cross-platform generalization is becoming increasingly essential as single-cell foundation models transition from research tools to clinical applications. The benchmarking data and protocols presented here provide a rigorous framework for assessing model robustness across biological contexts. By implementing these standardized evaluation metrics and experimental workflows, researchers can develop more reliable computational models that bridge species boundaries and technological platforms, ultimately accelerating the translation of single-cell multi-omics insights into therapeutic discoveries.

The analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data has been revolutionized by the emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs). However, the field faces significant challenges due to the heterogeneous architectures and coding standards of existing models, which complicate direct comparison and practical application [49]. The lack of standardized methods for evaluating performance has been a major obstacle for researchers seeking to leverage these powerful tools [49]. To address this critical gap, the BioLLM (biological large language model) framework was developed as a unified solution for integrating and applying scFMs to single-cell analysis [49] [83].

BioLLM represents a paradigm shift in computational biology by providing standardized application programming interfaces (APIs) and comprehensive documentation that enables seamless model switching and consistent benchmarking [49]. This framework eliminates architectural and coding inconsistencies that have previously hindered comparative analyses, offering researchers a cohesive interface that integrates diverse scFMs including scBERT, Geneformer, scGPT, and scFoundation [49]. By establishing rigorous quality control standards and implementing comprehensive performance metrics, BioLLM significantly enhances the quality, reproducibility, and reliability of bioinformatics analyses in single-cell genomics [49].

Performance Benchmarking of Single-Cell Foundation Models

Comprehensive Evaluation Using Standardized Metrics

Through its standardized evaluation pipeline, BioLLM has enabled systematic comparison of leading scFMs, revealing distinct performance trade-offs across various computational and biological tasks [49]. The framework employs multiple assessment criteria including embedding quality measured by average silhouette width (ASW), biological fidelity through gene regulatory network (GRN) analysis, and prediction accuracy using standard classification metrics [49].

Benchmarking results have demonstrated that scGPT consistently outperforms other models in zero-shot settings for generating biologically relevant cell embeddings across multiple individual datasets [49]. In evaluating batch-effect-removal capabilities—a critical challenge in single-cell analysis—scGPT also showed superior performance compared to other foundation models and traditional principal-component analysis (PCA) when applied to joint datasets with varying degrees of batch effects [49].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Single-Cell Foundation Models in Zero-Shot Settings

Model	Cell Embedding Quality (ASW)	Batch-Effect Correction	Input Length Scalability	Computational Efficiency
scGPT	Consistently high across datasets	Superior to PCA and other models	Improves with longer sequences	High (low memory & time)
Geneformer	Strong in gene-level tasks	Moderate (better than scBERT)	Slight negative correlation in some cases	High (low memory & time)
scFoundation	Strong in gene-level tasks	Moderate (better than scBERT)	Slight negative correlation in some cases	Lower than scGPT/Geneformer
scBERT	Lags behind other models	Poor performance	Declines with longer sequences	Lower than scGPT/Geneformer

Specialized Benchmarking: Perturbation Effect Prediction

The PertEval-scFM benchmark represents another specialized framework designed specifically for evaluating perturbation effect prediction, a crucial task for understanding cellular processes and disease mechanisms [84]. This standardized framework benchmarks zero-shot scFM embeddings against simpler baseline models to assess whether these contextualized representations enhance prediction of transcriptional responses to perturbations [84].

Notably, results from PertEval-scFM revealed that scFM embeddings do not provide consistent improvements over baseline models, especially under distribution shift [84]. All evaluated models struggled with predicting strong or atypical perturbation effects, highlighting the challenges of this task and revealing limitations of current-generation scFMs [84]. These findings underscore the need for specialized models and high-quality datasets that capture a broader range of cellular states [84].

Table 2: Computational Efficiency and Resource Usage of scFMs

Model	Memory Usage	Computational Time	Fine-Tuning Support	Cross-Species Adaptation
scGPT	Efficient	Fast	Yes (cell embedding extraction)	Strong capabilities
Geneformer	Efficient	Fast	Yes	Demonstrated capabilities
scFoundation	Less efficient	Slower	Limited data	Limited information
scBERT	Less efficient	Slower	Limited data	Limited information

Experimental Protocols for Model Evaluation

Protocol for Cell Representation Capacity Assessment

Objective: To evaluate the quality of cell embeddings generated by different scFMs in zero-shot settings and assess their biological relevance.

Materials:

• Single-cell datasets (minimum of 4 distinct datasets recommended)
• BioLLM framework installation
• Access to scFMs (scGPT, Geneformer, scFoundation, scBERT)
• Computing resources with adequate GPU memory

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Implement rigorous quality control standards using BioLLM's decision-tree-based preprocessing interface [49].
• Model Initialization: Load each foundation model through BioLLM's unified foundation model loader [49].
• Embedding Generation: Extract zero-shot cell embeddings for each dataset using the BioTask executor module [49].
• Quality Assessment: Calculate average silhouette width (ASW) to evaluate cluster separation quality [49].
• Visualization: Generate Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) visualizations to qualitatively assess cell-type separation [49].
• Batch Effect Evaluation: Apply models to joint datasets with known batch effects and compute ASW scores incorporating both cell-type and batch information [49].
• Input Length Testing: Evaluate embedding quality across varying gene input lengths to assess model robustness [49].

Protocol for Perturbation Effect Prediction Benchmarking

Objective: To systematically evaluate scFM performance in predicting transcriptional responses to perturbations using the PertEval-scFM framework.

Materials:

• Perturbation datasets with appropriate controls
• PertEval-scFM framework installation
• Baseline models for comparison
• Standardized evaluation metrics

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Curate high-quality perturbation datasets covering diverse cellular states and perturbation types [84].
• Embedding Extraction: Generate zero-shot embeddings using various scFMs through standardized protocols [84].
• Baseline Comparison: Evaluate scFM embeddings against simpler baseline models to determine relative performance [84].
• Distribution Shift Testing: Assess model robustness under varying experimental conditions and dataset compositions [84].
• Performance Quantification: Measure prediction accuracy for different perturbation strengths and types, with particular attention to strong or atypical effects [84].
• Statistical Analysis: Perform rigorous statistical testing to determine significance of performance differences between models [84].

Framework Architecture and Workflow Visualization

BioLLM Framework Architecture

BioLLM Framework Architecture: The three integrated modules of BioLLM work cohesively to standardize scFM deployment and evaluation.

Model Evaluation Workflow

Model Evaluation Workflow: Systematic progression through five stages in the BioTask executor module, supporting both zero-shot inference and targeted fine-tuning.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Tools and Platforms for scFM Benchmarking

Tool/Platform	Type	Primary Function	Application in Research
BioLLM Framework	Software Framework	Unified interface for diverse single-cell foundational models	Standardized model integration, switching, and benchmarking [49]
PertEval-scFM	Specialized Benchmark	Evaluation of perturbation effect prediction	Systematic assessment of scFM performance in predicting transcriptional responses [84]
CZ CELLxGENE	Data Resource	Unified access to annotated single-cell datasets	Provides standardized data for training and evaluation [14] [1]
scGPT	Foundation Model	Transformer-based model for single-cell analysis	Benchmark leader in cell embedding tasks and batch-effect correction [49]
Geneformer	Foundation Model	Transformer model for gene-level analysis	Strong performance in gene-level tasks benefiting from effective pretraining [49]
Seurat v5	Integration Tool	Bridge integration for multi-omics data	Enables integration of mRNA, chromatin accessibility, DNA methylation, and protein data [7]
GLUE	Integration Tool	Graph-Linked Unified Embedding for triple-omic integration	Uses graph variational autoencoder to anchor features using prior biological knowledge [7]

Future Directions in scFM Benchmarking

The development of standardized benchmarking frameworks represents a critical advancement in single-cell genomics, yet several challenges remain. Future initiatives must address the need for specialized models capable of handling strong perturbation effects and distribution shifts [84]. There is growing recognition that current benchmarks must evolve to capture more complex biological scenarios, including multimodal integration and cross-species adaptation [14].

Emerging trends indicate increased focus on transfer learning frameworks that extend model applicability across diverse biological contexts [14]. The integration of multimodal data—including transcriptomic, epigenomic, proteomic, and spatial imaging data—represents another frontier for scFM development [14] [1]. Furthermore, computational efficiency remains a practical concern, with lightweight models like scPlantFormer and CellPatch offering reduced complexity while maintaining competitive performance [14].

Standardized benchmarking frameworks like BioLLM will play an increasingly vital role in validating these advancements, ensuring that performance claims are rigorously tested against biologically relevant metrics, and ultimately accelerating the translation of computational advances into mechanistic insights and clinical applications [49] [14].

Conclusion

Single-cell foundation models represent a paradigm shift in multi-omics data integration, offering unprecedented capabilities for holistic biological analysis. By synthesizing insights across the four intents, it is evident that scFMs excel at extracting meaningful patterns from high-dimensional data through advanced architectures like transformers and self-supervised pretraining. While significant challenges remain in standardization, interpretability, and computational demands, the field is rapidly evolving with emerging solutions. Future directions will likely focus on enhanced multimodal integration, improved model interpretability, federated learning frameworks for decentralized data analysis, and stronger clinical translation pathways. As these models mature, they hold immense potential to accelerate biomarker discovery, therapeutic development, and the realization of precision medicine by providing a unified computational framework for understanding cellular complexity and disease mechanisms.

References

• 1. Single-cell foundation models: bringing artificial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01547-5]
• 2. Single-cell foundation models: The next big thing? [https://frontlinegenomics.com/single-cell-foundational-models-the-next-big-thing/]
• 3. Biology-driven insights into the power of single-cell foundation ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03781-6]
• 4. Closing the loop: Teaching single-cell foundation models to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12265564/]
• 5. Foundation Model: A New Era for Plant Single-cell Genomics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12380448/]
• 6. Multi-omics data integration considerations and study ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8058243/]
• 7. A Guide to Multi-omics Integration Strategies [https://frontlinegenomics.com/a-guide-to-multi-omics-integration-strategies/]
• 8. Article BioLLM: A standardized framework for integrating ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389925001746]
• 9. scMCs: a framework for single-cell multi-omics data ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36929930/]
• 10. OmicsML/awesome-foundation-model-single-cell-papers [https://github.com/OmicsML/awesome-foundation-model-single-cell-papers]
• 11. Transformative advances in single-cell omics - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12560279/]
• 12. CellMemory: hierarchical interpretation of out-of-distribution ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03638-y]
• 13. Biology-driven insights into the power of single-cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12492631/]
• 14. Transformative advances in single-cell omics: a ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-025-07091-0]
• 15. Tokenization and deep learning architectures in genomics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12356405/]
• 16. A Modular Framework for Tokenization in Single-Cell ... - Sciety [https://sciety.org/articles/activity/10.1101/2025.11.09.687403?utm_source=sciety_labs_article_page]
• 17. Lost in Tokenization: Context as the Key to Unlocking ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.23127v2]
• 18. Functional annotation of enzyme-encoding genes using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43216-z]
• 19. Multi-omics Data Integration, Interpretation, and Its Application [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7003173/]
• 20. A hybrid machine learning model with attention mechanism ... [https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-025-02209-8]
• 21. Multi-omics data integration using ratio-based quantitative ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-023-01934-1]
• 22. Delineating the effective use of self-supervised learning in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-024-00934-3]
• 23. Benchmarking Self-Supervised Learning for Single-Cell Data [https://arxiv.org/html/2506.10031v1]
• 24. Benchmarking atlas-level data integration in single-cell ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-021-01336-8]
• 25. scMFG: a single-cell multi-omics integration method based on ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11319-0]
• 26. Nicheformer: a foundation model for single-cell and spatial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02814-z]
• 27. TencentAILabHealthcare/scBERT [https://github.com/TencentAILabHealthcare/scBERT]
• 28. New Foundation Model Reveals How Cells Are Organized ... [https://www.helmholtz-munich.de/en/icb/news-detail/new-foundation-model-reveals-how-cells-are-organized-in-tissues]
• 29. scGPT – end-to-end protocol for fine-tuned retinal cell type ... [https://www.rna-seqblog.com/scgpt-end-to-end-protocol-for-fine-tuned-retinal-cell-type-annotation/]
• 30. Zero-shot evaluation reveals limitations of single-cell ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03574-x]
• 31. Nicheformer – a new foundation model that reveals how ... [https://www.rna-seqblog.com/nicheformer-a-new-foundation-model-that-reveals-how-cells-are-organized-in-tissues/]
• 32. Multimodal learning enables chat-based exploration of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02857-9]
• 33. Single-cell multiomics data integration and generation with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237525002474]
• 34. Benchmarking cell type and gene set annotation by large ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64511-x]
• 35. Graph-Regularized Logit Refinement for Zero-shot Cell ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.04747v1]
• 36. What Few-shot Learning Machine Vision Systems Mean in ... [https://www.unitxlabs.com/resources/few-shot-learning-machine-vision-system-2025-adaptation-ai/]
• 37. SynOmics: integrating multi-omics data through feature ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41231214/]
• 38. A mini-review on perturbation modelling across single-cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11076269/]
• 39. In silico biological discovery with large perturbation models [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-025-00870-1]
• 40. In-silico biological discovery with large perturbation models [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.23535v1]
• 41. Application of perturbation gene expression profiles in drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12341996/]
• 42. Charting gene regulatory networks: strategies, challenges and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1133755/]
• 43. Single-cell foundation models: bringing artificial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12586647/]
• 44. Module 5 Lab: Gene Regulation and Motif Analysis Practical Lab [https://baderlab.github.io/CBW_Pathways_2020/regulatory-network-lab.html]
• 45. Identification, visualization, statistical analysis and ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-021-04405-z]
• 46. Integrated Multi-Omic Data: Powering Precision Medicine [https://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/view/multi-omic-data-precision-medicine]
• 47. Omics-Based Clinical Trials Research Report 2025: Market to [https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/11/04/3180501/28124/en/Omics-Based-Clinical-Trials-Research-Report-2025-Market-to-Reach-44-1-Billion-by-2029-as-Personalized-Medicine-and-Multi-Omics-Adoption-Accelerate-Global-Long-term-Forecast-to-2034.html]
• 48. Applications of Single-Cell Omics in Tumor Immunology [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.697412/full]
• 49. BioLLM: A standardized framework for integrating and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12365531/]
• 50. Multi-omics single-cell data integration and regulatory ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-022-01284-4]
• 51. Comprehensive noise reduction in single-cell data with the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12570323/]
• 52. Compositional data modeling of high-dimensional single ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12539173/]
• 53. scVGAMF: a novel imputation method for scRNA-seq data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12554638/]
• 54. SmartImpute is a targeted imputation framework for single- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237525001584]
• 55. Cost-Effective Deployment of Large LLMs [https://wallaroo.ai/cost-effective-deployment-of-large-llms-overcoming-infrastructure-constraints/]
• 56. 6 Types of AI Workloads, Challenges & Critical Best Practices [https://cloudian.com/guides/ai-infrastructure/6-types-of-ai-workloads-challenges-and-critical-best-practices/]
• 57. Computational Intelligence: Infrastructure-First Approach to ... [https://www.flex.ai/blog/computational-intelligence]
• 58. scE2TM: Toward Interpretable Single-Cell Embedding via ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2507.08355v1]
• 59. The Latent Space Hypothesis Toward Universal Medical ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2506.04515v1]
• 60. Interpretable single-cell factor decomposition using sciRED [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57157-2]
• 61. scTFBridge: a disentangled deep generative model informed ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12528484/]
• 62. scKAN: interpretable single-cell analysis for cell-type-specific ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03779-0]
• 63. Performance Metrics: Confusion matrix, Precision, Recall ... [https://towardsdatascience.com/performance-metrics-confusion-matrix-precision-recall-and-f1-score-a8fe076a2262/]
• 64. Classification: Accuracy, recall, precision, and related metrics [https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/crash-course/classification/accuracy-precision-recall]
• 65. Understanding F1 Score, Accuracy, ROC-AUC & PR- ... [https://www.deepchecks.com/f1-score-accuracy-roc-auc-and-pr-auc-metrics-for-models/]
• 66. F1 Score: A Balanced Metric for Precision and Recall [https://www.datacamp.com/tutorial/f1-score]
• 67. MOFA+: a statistical framework for comprehensive integration ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-020-02015-1]
• 68. Multi‐Omics Factor Analysis—a framework for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6010767/]
• 69. MoGCN: A Multi-Omics Integration Method Based on ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2022.806842/full]
• 70. MoGCN: A Multi-Omics Integration Method Based on ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35186034/]
• 71. Comparative analysis of statistical and deep learning-based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12210783/]
• 72. Comparative analysis of statistical and deep learning ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40598554/]
• 73. MOFA | Multi-Omics Factor Analysis - GitHub Pages [https://biofam.github.io/MOFA2/]
• 74. mahmoudmohsen33/Comparative-Analysis-of-Statistical- ... [https://github.com/mahmoudmohsen33/Comparative-Analysis-of-Statistical-and-Deep-Learning-Based-Multi-Omics-Integration-for-Breast-Cance]
• 75. A major new review on single-cell multi-omics data ... [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1103830]
• 76. Benchmarking strategies for cross-species integration of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41855-w]
• 77. scMCs: a framework for single-cell multi-omics data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10070040/]
• 78. Robustness of Machine Learning and Deep ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/19/10602]
• 79. Single-cell multiomics: a new frontier in drug research and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/drug-discovery/articles/10.3389/fddsv.2024.1474331/full]
• 80. Advancing drug discovery through multiomics [https://www.ddw-online.com/advancing-drug-discovery-through-multiomics-37448-202510/]
• 81. Exemplar uses of multi-omics in drug discovery [https://frontlinegenomics.com/exemplar-uses-of-multi-omics-in-drug-discovery/]
• 82. Accelerating Drug Development Using Spatial Multi-omics [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38571424/]
• 83. : A standardized framework for integrating and BioLLM ... benchmarking [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40843339/]
• 84. PertEval-scFM: Benchmarking Single-Cell Foundation ... [https://openreview.net/forum?id=MWP9V0Ej0d]