PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 26, 2026Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences0 citationsOpen Access

iEnhancer-XLNet3D: an enhancer identification method based on 3-mer tokenization optimization and encoder deep perception

SZSiqi ZhanZXZhiZhan XuTWTaoTao Wang

Key Points

  • To create an effective method for identifying enhancers from DNA sequences using deep learning techniques.
  • Developed iEnhancer-XLNet3D framework combining global encoding with local refinement.
  • Utilized 3-mer tokenization for better sequence representation.
  • Introduced FUSE_ENCODER for enhanced feature aggregation across network layers.
  • Employed a dual depthwise-separable convolution module for effective feature refinement.
  • Evaluated model on a standard enhancer benchmark against prior methods.
  • Achieved 86.7% AUC on Stage-1 (enhancer vs. non-enhancer) on independent test set.
  • Attained 96.6% AUC on Stage-2 (strong vs. weak enhancer).
  • Ablation studies indicate contributions of tokenization, layer fusion, and convolution refinement.

Abstract

Enhancers are non-coding regulatory elements whose sequence patterns are diverse and context-dependent, making accurate identification from DNA sequence alone challenging. This study presents iEnhancer-XLNet3D, an enhancer prediction framework that combines global contextual encoding with local pattern refinement under a unified fine-tuning pipeline. Given a fixed-length DNA sequence, we apply overlapping 3-mer tokenization and reconstruct a compact 3-mer embedding to adapt XLNet-Base for genomic input (DNA3XLNet). To better exploit complementary information across network depths, we introduce FUSEENCODER to aggregate full-layer representations, and refine the fused features using a lightweight dual depthwise-separable convolution module (DDSCNN) before classification. The model is evaluated on the canonical enhancer benchmark for Stage-1 (enhancer vs. non-enhancer) and Stage-2 (strong vs. weak enhancer). Under a unified protocol, we compare against representative prior methods as well as modern pretrained baselines (including DNABERT-2 and a small Nucleotide Transformer) fine-tuned under the same conditions. On the independent test set, iEnhancer-XLNet3D attains 86. 7% AUC on Stage-1 and 96. 6% AUC on Stage-2. Ablation analyses suggest that DNA3XLNet, layer fusion, and convolutional refinement provide complementary contributions. Model weights are publicly available at: https: //github. com/tilerons/iEnhancer-XLNet3D.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zhan et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699fe28895ddcd3a253e64a5https://doi.org/10.1007/s44443-026-00555-3
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1An optimized dual-branch method for DNA enhancer identification based on pretrained models and multi-scale local regulatory motif extraction2026
  2. 2EnhancerBD identifing sequence feature2024 · 2 citations
  3. 3EnhancerDetector: enhancer discovery from human to fly via interpretable deep learning2026
  4. 4ETNet: an interpretable transformer framework for enhancer–enhancer interaction prediction with cross-context transferability2025
  5. 5DeepEnhancerPPO: An Interpretable Deep Learning Approach for Enhancer Classification2024