VirusT5: Harnessing Large Language Models to Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Evolution

Changhui Yan; Deewan Bajracharya; Vishwajeet Marathe

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 19 references

VirusT5: Harnessing Large Language Models to Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Evolution

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Treating mutation as translation lets a T5 model simulate SARS-CoV-2 evolution.

desk verdict Missing copy baseline undercuts the evolution claim, though the variant classification comparison with DNABERT-2 is a real, useful result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16262 v1 pith:VA7QBRQL submitted 2024-12-20 q-bio.QM cs.AI

Vishwajeet Marathe , Deewan Bajracharya , Changhui Yan This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.QMcs.AI

keywords SARS-CoV-2evolutionpredictionmutation-as-translationT5transformerreceptor-bindingdomainmutationhotspotsgenerativesimulationvariantclassificationgenomiclanguagemodel

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the evolution of a virus can be modeled as a translation problem: a transformer reads a parent receptor-binding domain (RBD) sequence and writes the sequence of the next generation. The authors train VirusT5, a T5 text-to-text transformer, by pretraining on SARS-CoV-2 genome segments with masked language modeling and then fine-tuning on 500,000 parent-child RBD pairs built from same-lineage sequences ordered by collection time. They report that the fine-tuned model translates test-set parents to their children with BLEU 0.999 and 99.97% average sequence identity, and that the per-site mutation pattern in its outputs matches the observed pattern with Pearson correlation 0.9999. Iterating the model for ten generations from a reference sequence yields sequences that a separately trained classifier labels as the intended variant 100% of the time. If correct, this establishes that sequence data alone can carry enough information about functional constraints for a language model to imitate lineage-specific mutation.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the T5 encoder-decoder transformer, a text-to-text architecture in which every task is cast as converting an input string into an output string. Here the source string is a parent RBD sequence and the target string is the child RBD sequence one generation later. Pretraining uses masked language modeling with 15% masking on non-overlapping genome segments of up to 512 bases; fine-tuning uses parent-child pairs formed by sorting same-lineage RBD sequences into ten date-ordered bins and treating consecutive bins as successive generations. The same fine-tuned model is then run autoregressively, feeding its own output back as the next input, to simulate ten generations of evolution from a single reference sequence.

What would settle it

Train VirusT5 on the same parent-child pairs with the direction reversed, feeding child sequences as inputs and parent sequences as targets; if the reversed model achieves similar translation scores and hotspot correlations, the model is capturing lineage-wide sequence similarity rather than the direction of mutation. A second check is to withhold the last time bin for each lineage, run the ten-generation simulator from the reference sequence, and compare the resulting sequences with the actual later sequences; the claim stands only if the simulated sequences match the held-out future data better than a baseline that simply copies the parent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the mutation process from one viral generation to the next is learnable as a text-to-text translation and that the learned model is a generative simulator of evolution. VirusT5 captures per-site functional constraints in the RBD: conserved sites are reproduced, mutation hotspots receive elevated substitution counts, and the aggregate mutation spectrum of its outputs tracks the observed spectrum almost exactly. The multi-generation experiment makes the stronger claim that separate models fine-tuned for Alpha, $\Delta$, Omicron, and non-VOC lineages can each take the same starting reference sequence and, after ten iterative generations, produce a sequence that reads as that lineage. The authors present the near-perfect translation scores and hotspot correlation as evidence that the model has learned the mutation patterns behind SARS-CoV-2 evolution rather than memorizing individual sequences.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that dividing same-lineage RBD sequences into ten equal calendar-time bins and treating each bin as the parent of the next bin approximates real evolutionary parent-child relationships; if that pairing is wrong, the fine-tuning target is not true evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

VirusT5 can be used as a one-generation mutation simulator for the RBD: given a parent sequence it produces a child sequence with 99.97% average identity while placing mutations at learned hotspot sites.
The per-site mutation counts of generated sequences match observed counts at Pearson correlation 0.9999, so the model doubles as a way to identify mutation hotspots from sequence data alone.
Separate per-variant models can simulate lineage-specific evolution from the same ancestor sequence; their ten-generation outputs are assigned to the intended variant with 100% accuracy.
The same pretrain-then-finetune recipe can be applied to other genes or other viruses whenever time-ordered, lineage-labeled sequence collections are available.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A copy-only control would clarify how much of the one-generation translation score comes from conservation; because most RBD positions are unchanged across a single bin, such a baseline is a natural next experiment.
The ten-bin schedule gives a mutation spectrum per sampling interval rather than per viral replication; the same architecture could be retrained on serial within-host samples to move toward a per-generation mutation model.
The parent-child construction could be applied to other constrained viral domains or to any pathogen with dated sequences, and the existing classifier could be used to watch whether simulated future sequences begin to appear in real data.
Simulated ten-generation sequences could be scored against experimental deep mutational scanning or antibody-escape measurements to test whether the learned mutation spectrum tracks functional fitness, not just lineage identity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the mutation-as-translation framing is genuinely new to SARS-CoV-2 work, and the classification comparison with DNABERT-2 is a solid piece of evidence. The evolution-prediction half, however, doesn't show what it claims. Almost every number in Section III.B is what an identity baseline would produce. A one-generation child RBD differs from its parent by only a handful of mutations, so returning the input unchanged gives BLEU near 1.0, sequence identity near 100%, and a per-site mutation correlation dominated by mutations that parent and child share. Without a copy baseline or a metric restricted to positions where parent and child actually differ, the translation metrics tell us nothing about learning mutation patterns.

The same issue affects the generative experiment. The per-variant generators and the classifier are trained on the same four labels, and no generated sequence is checked against real sequences from later dates. The 100% classification is only self-consistency.

The paper's own Section IV concedes the difficult part: the parent-child pairs are random samples from same-lineage, adjacent time bins, not true biological generations. That approximation is load-bearing, because the fine-tuning signal is only as good as those pairs. The authors are honest about it, but honesty doesn't fix the evaluation.

What's real: the pretrained T5 fine-tuned on RBD classification reaches 78.03% on DNABERT-2's own test data, beating DNABERT-2's reported 71.02%. That's a legitimate, reproducible comparison, and it suggests pretraining on viral genomes helps. Also, code is on GitHub; the pretraining and fine-tuning datasets are 'available on request,' which is less useful.

Who is this for? Someone exploring sequence-to-sequence models of viral evolution might use it as a starting point, but should not rely on the evolution metrics. As a paper, I wouldn't accept it in current form. The main claim is unevidenced by the reported experiments, and the missing baseline is a fundamental gap, not an editorial detail. If they added a copy baseline, a mutation-position-restricted metric, and a genuine temporal out-of-sample test, the evolution part could become publishable. Right now, a serious referee should send it back, and a desk editor would be justified in rejecting rather than spending referee time.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes VirusT5, a T5 transformer trained to treat SARS-CoV-2 RBD evolution as a translation task from a parental sequence to a child sequence. The model is pre-trained on SARS-CoV-2 genome segments and fine-tuned on 'parent-child' pairs constructed by binning sequences from the same GISAID lineage into 10 equal-time bins and pairing sequences from adjacent bins. The authors report high variant classification accuracy (97.29% on their own split, 78.03% on a DNABERT-2 benchmark), near-perfect translation scores (BLEU 0.999, identity 99.97%), a 0.9999 correlation between predicted and observed per-site mutation counts, and 100% variant classification of sequences generated by an iterative multi-generation simulation. They conclude that the model learns mutation patterns and can simulate viral evolution.

Significance. If the evaluation were rigorous, the 'mutation-as-translation' framing would be a novel and potentially useful application of large language models to viral evolution. The manuscript makes its code publicly available and the conceptual idea is fresh. However, the reported metrics do not currently distinguish learning of evolutionary dynamics from trivial sequence copying, and the generative evaluation is internally circular. The significance of the work therefore depends entirely on whether the authors can provide a proper baseline and a temporally or phylogenetically meaningful test.

major comments (4)

[II.C and IV] The parent-child dataset construction is the load-bearing premise, and it is not evolutionarily valid. Pairing arbitrary sequences from consecutive equal-time bins within the same lineage does not produce true evolutionary parent-child relationships; the authors themselves concede in Section IV that 'these estimates remain approximate' and that the pairs 'reflect population-level lineage evolutions ... rather than true biological parent-child relationships.' Because the fine-tuning signal may be an artifact of the binning procedure, the claim that VirusT5 learns genuine mutation patterns is not supported. The authors must either use phylogenetically inferred or within-host longitudinal parent-child pairs, or explicitly reframe the task as modeling within-lineage sequence change and scale back claims about predicting evolution.
[III.B] The translation metrics reported in Section III.B (BLEU 0.999, sequence identity 99.97%, Pearson correlation 0.9999) are consistent with an identity-copy baseline. Because the input and target are drawn from the same lineage and adjacent equal-time bins, they differ at very few positions, and a model that simply returns the input unchanged reproduces nearly all of the target, inheriting all lineage-defining mutations. The mutation-pattern correlation is computed over all sites, most of which are invariant, which makes the near-perfect value uninformative. The authors should include a copy (return-input) baseline and evaluate mutation prediction only at positions where parent and child actually differ, using metrics such as per-site mutation precision and recall for variable sites.
[III.C] The generative evaluation is circular. The four variant-specific generators were fine-tuned on pairs labeled by variant, and the classifier used to score the 400 generated sequences was trained on the same four variant labels in Section III.A. With near-identical input-output pairs and the same label set, 100% classification accuracy does not demonstrate that the iterative procedure simulates multi-generation evolution; it is equally consistent with each generator reproducing a variant-specific sequence signature. The evaluation should compare the generated '10th-generation' sequences to real SARS-CoV-2 sequences collected at later dates, or at least hold out the final time bins from training and test against them.
[III.B.2 and III.C] There is no temporal or lineage-based split in the evaluation. The translation test set is drawn from the same lineages and the same 10-bin period as the training data, so the near-perfect scores may reflect that the model has memorized essentially the same sequence-pairs seen during training. A meaningful test of predictive evolution requires training on data up to a cutoff date or on early lineages and testing on later, unseen data; as written, the paper does not show that VirusT5 generalizes to novel evolutionary events.

minor comments (7)

[II] Three subsections under 'Datasets and Methods' are all labeled 'D.' (Pre-training, Fine-tuning, Computer system); they should be renumbered D, E, F.
[Figures 4 and 5] The captions contain a typo: 'rue mutation pattern' should be 'true mutation pattern.'
[I] The sentence 'In this study specifically investigated viral evolution within a host' is grammatically incomplete; it should read 'This study specifically investigated...' or be removed, and in any case the study uses population-level lineage data rather than within-host evolution, so the sentence is misleading.
[III.A] The DNABERT-2 comparison should state whether the same data split was used and how the 78.03% versus 71.02% result compares across runs, as accuracy of a single run is not evidence of a significant improvement.
[V] The sentence 'The model, code are available for use' is grammatically incorrect; it should say 'The model and code are available for use.'
[II.D] The pretraining description does not specify the tokenization scheme (single nucleotides, k-mers, or BPE) or the exact masking procedure; adding these details would improve reproducibility.
[III.C] The iterative generation process starting from the Wuhan reference sequence may accumulate model-specific artifacts, yet no analysis of the intermediate generation sequences or their plausibility is provided; at least a discussion of potential drift or mode collapse would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

VirusT5's headline translation metrics are forced by the parent–child construction: copying the input yields near-perfect BLEU, identity, and mutation-hotspot correlation, and the generative evaluation is scored by a classifier trained on the same four variant labels.

fitted input called prediction [Section II.C and Section III.B.1]
"RBD sequences from the same lineage were divided into 10 consecutive bins based on their collection dates... Sequences in bin Bi were considered evolutionary parents of sequences in bin B i+1. ... Our model achieved a BLEU score of 0.999 on the test set. ... resulting in an average sequence identity of 99.97%."

Parent and child sequences are drawn from the same lineage in adjacent time bins, so they share all lineage-defining mutations and differ at only a tiny fraction of positions. A model that simply returns its input unchanged would therefore achieve BLEU ≈ 1 and identity ≈ 99.9% by construction. The reported translation metrics measure the similarity built into the binning scheme, not whether VirusT5 learned evolutionary dynamics; no identity-copy baseline or evaluation restricted to changed positions is reported.
fitted input called prediction [Section III.B.2]
"we first aligned all child sequences with a reference RBD sequence and tallied the number of mutations at each reference site to represent the true observed mutation pattern. We then aligned all translation outputs (i.e., predicted sequences) to the reference sequence and counted the mutations... The mutation patterns captured by VirusT5 showed a strong correlation with the true mutation patterns, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9999."

The translation outputs are effectively the parental inputs, because the model can score almost perfectly by copying. The 'true' child sequences are likewise nearly identical to those same parental inputs, since parent-child pairs are sampled from the same lineage in consecutive bins. Per-site mutation counts for predictions and for children are therefore both dominated by the parent sequence's mutations relative to the reference, so the 0.9999 correlation is forced by the shared input rather than by a learned model of which positions mutate.

1 more flagged steps

other [Section III.C]
"we fine-tuned four separate translation models, one for each variant type, denoted as Ta, Td, To, and Tn... we fed the 400 present-day sequences generated by the four models into the classifier trained in Section 1 to predict their variant types. The classifier achieved 100% accuracy in variant classification."

The classifier was trained on the same four variant labels and the same RBD data used to construct the parent-child training pairs. The generative evaluation therefore checks only whether each generator reproduces the variant category it was trained on; it is a self-consistency check, not a prediction validated against temporally future real sequences. The 100% classification accuracy is largely inherited from the shared label set and does not establish that the generated sequences represent plausible future evolution.

full rationale

The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation chain; the circularity is in the evaluation design. The parent-child pairs are defined by sampling from the same lineage in consecutive time bins, so input and target are nearly identical by construction. Consequently, the reported BLEU of 0.999, 99.97% sequence identity, and 0.9999 per-site mutation correlation are all consistent with an identity-copy baseline and do not isolate the positions where parent and child actually differ. The hotspot analysis compounds this: predicted and 'true' mutation patterns are both computed relative to the same reference and are both dominated by the shared parental sequence, so the near-perfect correlation is forced. The generative experiment is also self-consistent rather than predictive: the same four variant labels are used to train both the per-variant generators and the classifier that scores their outputs, and no generated sequence is compared with real sequences from later dates. The authors' own Section IV concession that the pairs 'reflect population-level lineage evolutions ... rather than true biological parent-child relationships' and that generational bins 'remain approximate' further weakens the claim that the model captured true evolutionary mutation patterns. A fair evaluation would require an identity baseline, changed-position-only metrics, or temporal out-of-distribution validation against future real sequences. Because the central evidence for 'mutation-as-translation' reduces to properties of the training construction, the score is 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on an arbitrary binning definition of generations, a copy-dominated metric, and self-consistent generative evaluation; no independently falsifiable target is used.

free parameters (6)

temporal_bin_count = 10
Lineage sequences are split into 10 equal-time bins that define one generation; the number 10 is arbitrary and directly determines the parent-child supervision and all downstream results (Section II.C).
parent_child_pair_count = 500,000
The number of sampled parent-child pairs is chosen for training scale, not derived from data; affects training and results (Section II.C).
pretraining_lr = 0.005
Inverse square root schedule with initial LR 0.005 for 2,000 steps; chosen hyperparameter, not fitted to external data (Section II.D).
pretraining_steps = 12,000
Total pretraining steps chosen for compute budget; affects learned representations (Section II.D).
fine_tuning_epochs = 8 (classification), 4 (translation)
Stopped when losses stabilized; stopping rule is ad hoc and can affect reported accuracies (Section III.A, III.B.1).
masking_rate = 15%
Standard MLM masking rate adopted from T5; chosen, not fitted (Section II.D).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Random sequences from consecutive time bins in the same lineage represent parent-child evolutionary generations.
This is the core supervision signal; Section II.C constructs pairs this way and Section IV concedes bins may not align with real generation times.
domain assumption The RBD sequence and variant labels from GISAID are accurate and representative.
All training and evaluation rely on GISAID metadata and alignments; errors would propagate (Section II.A-B).
domain assumption Sequence identity and BLEU against the child sequence measure learned evolutionary translation.
Because child sequences differ from parents by few mutations, copying the input achieves near-perfect scores; the metric does not isolate new mutations (Section III.B.1).
standard math T5 masked-language pretraining transfers useful genomic syntax to the fine-tuning tasks.
Relies on the T5 architecture and pretraining results [17]; no proof that MLM on genomic segments captures functional constraints (Section II.D).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VirusT5: Harnessing Large Language Models to Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VA7QBRQL

@misc{pith2026241216262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VirusT5: Harnessing Large Language Models to Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VA7QBRQL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16262}
}

read the original abstract

During a virus's evolution,various regions of the genome are subjected to distinct levels of functional constraints.Combined with factors like codon bias and DNA repair efficiency,these constraints contribute to unique mutation patterns within the genome or a specific gene. In this project, we harnessed the power of Large Language Models(LLMs) to predict the evolution of SARS-CoV-2. By treating the mutation process from one generation to the next as a translation task, we trained a transformer model, called VirusT5, to capture the mutation patterns underlying SARS-CoV-2 evolution. We evaluated the VirusT5's ability to detect these mutation patterns including its ability to identify mutation hotspots and explored the potential of using VirusT5 to predict future virus variants. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of using a large language model to model viral evolution as a translation process. This study establishes the groundbreaking concept of "mutation-as-translation," paving the way for new methodologies and tools for combating virus threats

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16262 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Training loss and evaluation loss when the model was fine-tuned to translate a parental RBD sequence into a child sequence. Translation accuracy was evaluated using the BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy) score and sequence identity. BLEU is an algorithm that assesses the quality of machinetranslated text by comparing it to reference translations, with scores ranging from 0 (completely incorrect) to 1 (perfect … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Mutation pattern captured by VirusT5 (blue) align well with the rue mutation pattern (yellow) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Mutation pattern captured by VirusT5 (blue) slightly deviates from the rue mutation pattern (yellow) at the end of the RBD, but still accurately identifies the mutation hotspot (e.g. position 606) To assess how well the fine-tuned VirusT5 captured these mutation patter…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: ’s confusion matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Ampofo, W. K. et al. Improving influenza vaccine virus selection: report of a WHO informal consultation held at WHO headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland, 14-16 June 2010. Influenza Other Respiratory Viruses, 6, 142–152, 2012

work page 2010
[2]

Smith, D. J. et al. Mapping the antigenic and genetic evolution of influenza virus. Science, 305, 371–376, 2004)

work page 2004
[3]

& Lässig, M

Łuksza, M. & Lässig, M. A predictive fitness model for influenza. Nature, 507, 57 –61, 2014; Huddleston, J. et al. Integrating genotypes and phenotypes improves long -term forecasts of seasonal influenza A/H3N2 evolution. eLife, 9, e60067, 2020; Neher, R. A., Russell, C. A. & Shraiman, B. I. Predicting evolution from the shape of genealogical trees. eLife...

work page 2014
[4]

Lou, J., Liang, W., Cao, L. et al. Predictive evolutionary modelling for influenza virus by site -based dynamics of mutations. Nat Commun 15, 2546 (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

Duarte, C.M., Ketcheson, D.I., Eguíluz, V.M. et al. Rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2 challenges human defenses. Sci Rep 12, 6457 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

Markov, P.V., Ghafari, M., Beer, M. et al. The evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Rev Microbiol 21, 361–379 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

H. A. Al Khatib et al., Within-host diversity of SARS-CoV- 2 in COVID -19 patients with variable disease severities. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 10, 575613 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

Statistical Challenges in Tracking the Evolution of SARS-CoV-2

Cappello L, Kim J, Liu S, Palacios JA. Statistical Challenges in Tracking the Evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Stat Sci. 2022 May;37(2):162-182

work page 2022

Show all 19 references

[9]

GISAID: Global initiative on sharing all influenza data - from vision to reality

Shu Y, McCauley J. GISAID: Global initiative on sharing all influenza data - from vision to reality. Euro Surveill. 2017 Mar 30;22(13):30494

2017
[10]

(2020) Genomic surveillance reveals multiple introductions of Sars -CoV-2 into northern California

Deng X, Gu W, Federman S, Du Plessis L, Pybus OG, Faria NR, Wang C, Yu G, Bushnell B et al. (2020) Genomic surveillance reveals multiple introductions of Sars -CoV-2 into northern California. Science 369 582–587

2020
[11]

Volz E, Hill V, McCrone JT, Price A, Jorgensen D, O’toole Á, Southgate J, Johnson R, Jackson B et al. (2021). Evaluating the effects of Sars-CoV-2 spike mutation D614G on transmissibility and pathogenicity. Cell 184 64–75

2021
[12]

Han, W., Chen, N., Xu, X. et al. Predicting the antigenic evolution of SARS -COV-2 with deep learning. Nat Commun 14, 3478 (2023)

2023
[13]

Thadani, N.N., Gurev, S., Notin, P. et al. Learning from prepandemic data to forecast viral escape. Nature 622, 818– 825 (2023)

2023
[14]

Dadonaite, B., Brown, J., McMahon, T.E. et al. Spike deep mutational scanning helps predict success of SARS -CoV-2 clades. Nature 631, 617–626 (2024)

2024
[15]

Incipient functional SARS-CoV-2 diversification identified through neural 6 network haplotype maps

Delgado S, Somovilla P, Ferrer -Orta C, Martínez - González B, Vázquez -Monteagudo S, Muñoz -Flores J, Soria ME, García -Crespo C, de Ávila AI, Durán -Pastor A, Gadea I, López-Galíndez C, Moran F, Lorenzo-Redondo R, Verdaguer N, Perales C, Domingo E. Incipient functional SARS-...

2024
[16]

The EMBL - EBI Job Dispatcher sequence analysis tools framework in

Madeira F, Madhusoodanan N, Lee J, et al. The EMBL - EBI Job Dispatcher sequence analysis tools framework in
[17]

Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text -to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 21, 1, 1532-4435

2020
[18]

DNABERT-2: Efficient Foundation Model and Benchmark For Multi -Species Genome

Zhou, Zhihan, Yanrong Ji, Weijian Li, Pratik Dutta, Ramana V. Davuluri and Han Liu. “DNABERT-2: Efficient Foundation Model and Benchmark For Multi -Species Genome.” ArXiv abs/2306.15006 (2023). Vishwajeet Marathe is a PhD candidate in the Department of Computer Science at Nort...

2023 arXiv
[2024]

2024 Jul;52(W1):W521 - W525

Nucleic Acids Research. 2024 Jul;52(W1):W521 - W525

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ampofo, W. K. et al. Improving influenza vaccine virus selection: report of a WHO informal consultation held at WHO headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland, 14-16 June 2010. Influenza Other Respiratory Viruses, 6, 142–152, 2012

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Smith, D. J. et al. Mapping the antigenic and genetic evolution of influenza virus. Science, 305, 371–376, 2004)

work page 2004

[3] [3]

& Lässig, M

Łuksza, M. & Lässig, M. A predictive fitness model for influenza. Nature, 507, 57 –61, 2014; Huddleston, J. et al. Integrating genotypes and phenotypes improves long -term forecasts of seasonal influenza A/H3N2 evolution. eLife, 9, e60067, 2020; Neher, R. A., Russell, C. A. & Shraiman, B. I. Predicting evolution from the shape of genealogical trees. eLife...

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Lou, J., Liang, W., Cao, L. et al. Predictive evolutionary modelling for influenza virus by site -based dynamics of mutations. Nat Commun 15, 2546 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Duarte, C.M., Ketcheson, D.I., Eguíluz, V.M. et al. Rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2 challenges human defenses. Sci Rep 12, 6457 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Markov, P.V., Ghafari, M., Beer, M. et al. The evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Rev Microbiol 21, 361–379 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

H. A. Al Khatib et al., Within-host diversity of SARS-CoV- 2 in COVID -19 patients with variable disease severities. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 10, 575613 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Statistical Challenges in Tracking the Evolution of SARS-CoV-2

Cappello L, Kim J, Liu S, Palacios JA. Statistical Challenges in Tracking the Evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Stat Sci. 2022 May;37(2):162-182

work page 2022