Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.64898/2026.01.30.702134

BIG-TB: A benchmark for evaluating prediction and interpretability of sequence-based machine learning using *Mycobacterium tuberculosis* genomes

Abstract

Foundation models aim to learn useful representations of biological sequences. However, the applicability of these representations for a wide range of tasks, including phenotype prediction and variant discovery, is still in question, in large part due to the relatively small set of benchmark tasks. To this end, we present the Benchmarks for Interpretable prediction from Genomes of Tuberculosis, BIG-TB. We curate over 17,000 genomes with high-quality short read sequencing data and experimentally measured antibiotic resistance phenotypes, combined with a curated list of canonical resistance-conferring variants, and provide these data in an ML-ready format. BIG-TB defines two tasks for interrogating the utility of foundation models: (1) predictive performance of antibiotic resistance phenotypes, and (2) attribution of predictions to known resistance-conferring variants from an expert-curated dataset. Using our benchmark, we show that DNA-based foundation models do not yet outperform simple machine learning baselines (mean test AUC = 0.888 vs. 0.846 for best CNN variant vs. best DNABERT variant across drugs). Our benchmark also supports protein-based models, where performance is worse than DNA-based models due to the loss of representation of non-coding variants, but where foundation models are more competitive with simple ML. We show that the models with highest predictive performance do not necessarily perform the best at canonical resistance variant discovery - indicating that in many cases the improved performance may be due to non-causal associations between variants and phenotype. Finally, we show that the choice of embedding representation has a major impact on foundation model performance, and that representations that average over sequence position perform poorly at both prediction and canonical resistance variant discovery. Overall, BIG-TB provides a new type of benchmark for foundation models of biological sequences, facilitating comparison of representations across multiple tasks. Code available at https://github.com/SAGE-Lab-UMass/Big-TB-benchmark.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tasmin, M., Mohanty, S., Kulkarni, S., Farhat, M. R., Green, A. G.. 2026-02-02. BIG-TB: A benchmark for evaluating prediction and interpretability of sequence-based machine learning using *Mycobacterium tuberculosis* genomes. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.01.30.702134

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

deepTools4: Faster, Scalable, and Modernized Genomic Data Analysis

The deepTools suite is widely used for quality control, summarization, and visualization of high-throughput sequencing data. However, as genomic datasets grow in scale and depth, existing tools often become computational bottlenecks. We present deepTools4, a modernized framework designed for high performance, scalability, and enhanced usability, while maintaining seamless integration with the Galaxy platform. Core functionality has been rewritten and thoroughly benchmarked, achieving substantial computational speed-ups. Visualization tools have been modernized to provide more intuitive, high-quality graphical outputs. In addition, our testing framework has been expanded to facilitate continuous development and ensure robustness. We demonstrate the utility of deepTools4 across diverse epigenomics and transcriptomics datasets, highlighting its ability to summarize genome-wide signals, apply a wide range of common normalization methods, and visualize enrichment patterns. The enhanced deepTools4 framework delivers a faster, more scalable solution for reproducible genome-wide analysis and interpretation across many sequencing modalities. Availability: https://github.com/deeptools/deepTools/

bioinformatics↗

Reproducibility and cross-dataset concordance of drug-induced transcriptional responses

Drug-perturbation transcriptomic resources are expanding, but the reproducibility and cross-source consistency of the responses they measure remain critical to their use. We compared six resources using independent replicates, matched-drug analyses, and response decomposition. High agreement in treated expression did not translate into equally repeatable drug-induced changes. Cross-source response concordance was generally limited, including under matched cell and treatment conditions, although some comparisons retained drug-specific information. In Tahoe, a control-expression-only baseline left substantial drug-specific variation unresolved. Measured drug main effects - the average responses across cell lines - provided information for predicting cell-specific interactions, with this relationship retained in a cross-plate validation. Exploratory analyses of structure, target, and external-response representations identified modest signals in selected pipelines. Together, these analyses characterize the reliability and transferability of current perturbation resources and identify prediction of drug main effects as a key bottleneck in the framework examined, motivating shared reference measurements and better recovery of drug-specific responses.

bioinformatics↗

Propensity-Adjusted AUC under Nuisance-Model Misspecification

Propensity adjustment compares medical-image detector scores within groups with similar measured properties, such as stain or focus. We examine its sensitivity to the nuisance model that forms those groups. Under Gaussian latent-index assumptions and exact linear-index strata, a closed-form correlation gives an exact boundary for adjusted AUC to fall below one half. Quadrature matches 36 simulation cells within 0.008. Inflation and attenuation relative to correct adjustment are empirical findings, not general ordering results. An overlap screen and a self-stratified control introduced for this study miss 140 of 141 simulated cells with absolute error above 0.05: checking the fitted propensity cannot certify completeness of the adjustment set. On real pathology corpora, logistic and boosted-tree models using the same 16 features disagree. Among splits where both pass both checks, mean adjusted-AUC gaps are 0.057 on acid-fast bacilli (AFB), 0.048 on Kaggle, and 0.049 on PCam, over three, five, and three splits respectively. These gaps measure model sensitivity; neither estimate is known to be correct. A controlled colour shift moves adjusted AUC relative to model-specific references in the predicted direction in 78 of 80 label-dependent cells. Broader balance and label-fit diagnostics favour trees without certifying their adjusted AUC. We recommend reporting sensitivity across nuisance models alongside these diagnostics. Reversal relative to known truth occurs in constructed stress tests; its frequency in practice remains unknown.

bioinformatics↗