# Navigating protein–nucleic acid sequence-structure landscapes with deep learning

Elodie Laine<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,ª, Sergei Grudinin<fnref n="3" />,ª, Roman Klypa<fnref n="3" /> and
Isaure Chauvot de Beauchêne<fnref n="4" />

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

A few years after AlphaFold revolutionised the field of protein structure prediction, the new frontiers and limitations in structural biology have become clearer. Predicting protein–nucleic acid interactions currently stands as one of the major unresolved challenges in the field. This knowledge gap stems from the scarcity and limited diversity of experimental data, as well as the unique geometric, physicochemical, and evolutionary properties of nucleic acids. Despite these challenges, innovative ideas and promising methodological developments have emerged for both predicting protein–nucleic acid complex structures and designing nucleic acids capable of binding to specific protein conformations. This review presents these recent advances and discusses promising avenues, including the integration of high-throughput profiling data, the development of more rigourous and richer evaluation benchmarks, and the discovery of biologically meaningful regulatory and structural signals using self-supervised learning.

## Addresses

Corresponding authors: Laine, Elodie (elodie.laine@sorbonne-universite.fr); Grudinin, Sergei (sergei.grudinin@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr)

## Keywords

Protein-NA complex, RNA design, Generative modeling, Deep learning.

## Introduction

Interactions between proteins and deoxyribo(D-) or ribo (R-) nucleic acid (NA) molecules play essential roles in a plethora of biological processes, including genome replication and protection, gene expression, transcription and splicing, protein translation, and the immune response, among others. Moreover, protein–RNA interaction networks have recently emerged as promising therapeutic targets, due to the numerous diseases associated with their impairment – cancer, cardiovascular disease, and neurodegenerative disorders, and the explosion of high-throughput biochemical methods for profiling these interactions [1]. Hence, deciphering the recognition mechanisms and binding modes underlying protein–NA interactions is essential for fundamental biology as well as medicine. Nevertheless, our knowledge about protein-NA complexes has been lagging far behind that of protein–protein complexes.

Despite having greatly increased in the last decades, the number of protein–NA complex structures available in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) [2,3], around 14,750 as of June 2025, is still dramatically smaller compared to that of proteins and homomeric protein complexes [2]. Moreover, the set of known protein–NA complexes lacks diversity, with the ~6,500 experimentally resolved protein–RNA complexes encompassing only a few short and highly folded RNA families, such as tRNAs, riboswitches and ribozymes [4,5]. This difficulty in experimentally solving protein–NA complex structures calls for the development of high-throughput and accurate predictive methods.

In this review, we critically assess deep learning methods for predicting protein-NA complex structures, highlighting specific properties of nucleic acids that may limit current accuracy. We also examine the related challenge of designing nucleic acids that bind to target

## Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2025, 95:103162

This review comes from a themed issue on **VSI: Protein Nucleic Acid Interactions (2025)**

Edited by **Shandar Ahmad** and **Elodie Laine**

For a complete overview see the **Issue** and the **Editorial**

Available online xxx

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2025.103162

0959-440X/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

<footnote n="3">³ Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LJK, Grenoble, 38000, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ LORIA, CNRS, Inria, University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, 54506, France</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Computational, Quantitative, and Synthetic Biology (CQSB), UMR 7238, IBPS, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Paris, 75005, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), France</footnote>

<footnote>ª These authors contributed equally to this work.</footnote>
proteins, and explore promising future directions. Our focus is primarily on RNA, reflecting both the greater research attention it has received and its central role in many regulatory and therapeutic applications.

Deep learning has not yet revolutionised
protein-NA complex prediction

The spectacular advances in protein structure predic-
tion [6,7] have stimulated a strong interest in expanding
successful deep learning architectures to model nucleic
acids in addition to proteins (Figure 1a,c and Table 1).
RoseTTAFoldNA (RFNA) emerged as the first deep
learning method specifically designed for protein-NA
complex prediction [8], with a 3-track neural network
operating on protein and NA multiple sequence align-
ments (MSA), geometry, and 3D coordinates, stacked
with an SE(3)-equivariant transformer [9] for refine-
ment. It was quickly followed by AlphaFold3 (AF3) [10]
whose advances compared to AlphaFold2, beyond

handling nucleic acids and other molecules, include
simplifying the treatment of sequence information,
introducing a denoising diffusion framework for refining
the 3D coordinates, favouring data augmentation over
strict SE(3) equivariance, and enriching the training
data with AF-Multimer distillation. Several open-source
adaptations of AF3 are now available, such as the Boltz
series [11] and HelixFold3 [12].

However, these generalised models for predicting bio-
molecular complexes have not yet met the scientific
community's expectations. Indeed, the latest edition of
the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein
Structure Prediction (CASP16) emphasised limitations
in deep learning-based methods for protein-NA inter-
action structure prediction, which fail to outperform
more traditional approaches without human expertise
[13]. The AF3 server [10] was ranked 16th and 13th
(IDDT and i-IDDT) overall for protein-NA interface

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1</figcaption></figure>

**Overview of the protein-NA prediction paradigms discussed in the review.** (a) Prediction of protein-NA complex structures starting from multiple sequence alignments. The purple arrow indicates NA sequence design through hallucination (e.g., BindEnergyCraft [25]). (b) Design of NA competent for binding a given protein. Left: co-design of NA sequence and structure starting from a fixed protein conformation and a noisy RNA structure. Middle: design of NA sequence conditioned on an input protein conformation. Right: design of NA sequence conditioned on a protein sequence. The experimental structural data contained in the PDB can be augmented with omics data, for instance coming from SELEX experiments, to improve training. (c)-(d) Diagrams depicting some deep neural network architectures designed for these tasks. (c) AF3 [10] and RF2NA [8] for structure predictions (a). (d) CARD [26], RNAFlow [27], RNA-BAnG [28], and RNAtranslator [29] for protein-conditioned RNA design (b).
<caption>Table 1</caption>

Deep learning approaches for protein-NA complex prediction. We list a selection of methods discussed in this review and indicate whether each method was evaluated in an independent benchmark. The term "Ludaic-Elofsson" refers to the Ludaic and Elofsson benchmark [32].

<table><thead><tr><th>Method</th><th>Benchmark</th><th>Architecture</th><th>Strengths</th><th>Weaknesses</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AlphaFold3 [10]</td><td>CASP, RNAGym, Ludaic-Elofsson</td><td>MSA-conditioned standard diffusion with transformer</td><td>broad molecular context</td><td>Memorization</td></tr><tr><td>RoseTTAFold2NA [8]</td><td>CASP, RNAGym, Ludaic-Elofsson</td><td>MSA-based, 3-track network for tokens, geometry, and coordinates, with SE(3)-transformer</td><td>Extended to broad molecular context in RoseTTAFold-all-Atom [30]</td><td>Poor modeling of local basepair network</td></tr><tr><td>HelixFold3 [31]</td><td>CASP, as part of Elofsson method [14], Ludaic-Elofsson</td><td>Adapted from AlphaFold3</td><td>broad molecular context</td><td>Does not outperform AlphaFold3</td></tr><tr><td>Boltz series [11, 12]</td><td>Ludaic-Elofsson</td><td>Adapted from AlphaFold3</td><td>broad molecular context, additional developments for affinity predictions</td><td>Does not outperform AlphaFold3</td></tr><tr><td>DeepProtNA [14]</td><td>CASP</td><td>Adapted from AF2, combines MSA with LM embeddings and secondary structure prediction</td><td>Used in several top performing predictors in CASP</td><td>Not published nor available</td></tr></tbody></table>

and hybrid complex prediction in CASP16. All deep learning predictors performing better than this baseline either directly used or adapted AF and RFNA architectures, achieving enhanced performance through expert manual intervention, deeper sequence search combined with Language Model (LM) embeddings, better template identification, and refinement with classical docking or molecular dynamics simulations [14] (Table 1). Nonetheless, none identified residues involved in the interface for the two targets that lacked templates in the PDB, highlighting that protein-NA complex structure prediction still largely relies on the availability of homologous experimental structures as templates [13].

Focusing on protein-RNA complexes, the authors of AlphaFold3 reported a success rate of only 38 % for a small test set of 25 complexes with low homology to known template structures, compared to 19 % for RoseTTAFold2NA [10]. A comprehensive benchmarking study of the two predictors on over a hundred protein-RNA complexes further confirmed these results: AF3 outperforms RF2NA but its predictive accuracy remains modest, with an average TM-score of 0.381 [15]. AF3 struggles in modelling protein-RNA complexes beyond its training set and in capturing non-canonical contacts and cooperative interactions [5].

## Nucleic acids are not proteins: the challenge of flexibility

To overcome the scarcity of experimental data for protein-NA complexes, researchers have sought to leverage knowledge transfer from the more abundantly characterised protein and protein-protein structures. Nevertheless, nucleic acids display specific properties that distinguish them from proteins (Figure 2).

First, while proteins' amino acid composition strongly influences their physicochemical properties, 3D geometry and solubility, nucleic acids exhibit a more hierarchical structural organization. Base composition primarily determines the secondary structure (2D base-pairing patterns), which in turn largely constrains the overall 3D fold. Second, the phosphate backbone is highly negatively charged, and works in concert with base stacking interactions to drive NA folding and stability. RNA molecules, specifically, are highly soluble in salty water and highly dynamic in solution. Their structure and dynamics often critically depend on the valence and ionic strength of the solution [16]. Third, the backbone of nucleic acids is much more flexible than the protein backbone, with 6 rotatable bonds per nucleotide versus only 2 per amino acid, which greatly increases the size of their conformational space. In particular, this allows RNA molecules, which often contain single-stranded (unpaired) nucleotides, to
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2</figcaption></figure>

**Example of a protein-RNA complex.** We chose the cryo-electron microscopy structure of the human TUT1:U6 snRNA complex (PDB code: 9J8P [37]) to illustrate specific properties of RNAs, proteins, and their interfaces. This complex is essential for the efficiency of pre-mRNA splicing.

switch between multiple 3D conformations [17,18], thereby contributing to their functional diversity [19]. Consequently, RNA 3D structures are inherently more flexible and context-dependent than protein structures. This flexibility poses significant challenges while simultaneously offering opportunities for computational modelling: while it complicates direct 3D structure prediction, it highlights the importance of ensemble-based approaches and the value of secondary structure as a stable foundation.

The challenge of flexibility is most pronounced for modelling complexes containing single-stranded (ss) regions of RNA, such as those mediated by ssRNA-binding motifs [20], or those involving RNA aptamers, short fully single-stranded oligonucleotides that can bind proteins with high affinity and specificity. RoseTTa-FoldNA could obtain a correct model of the interface for only 1 out of 7 such test cases, and the authors highlighted the high flexibility of ssRNA as a major limitation [8]. Additionally, the induced-fit effect of proteins generates ssRNA conformations that differ from those experimentally observed in free ssRNA [21], contributing to the structural data scarcity challenge. This issue has driven the development of specific methods to build ssRNA conformations directly on the protein surface, based on fragment docking and assembly approaches [22–24].

## Evolutionary conservation of functional interactions

Much of the success of current protein structure prediction methods stems from their ability to capture amino acid covariations across homologous protein sequences, which reveal evolutionary constraints for maintaining their 3D structures. Likewise, nucleic acid sequence divergence patterns encode information relevant to their structures, and many covariation statistics, such as mutual information, G-test measures, and direct coupling analysis (based on the Potts model) have been explored for identifying conserved RNA structural contacts. These methods estimate counts or frequencies of nucleotide co-occurrences between pairs of positions from an input MSA — we refer readers to Ref. [38] for detailed mathematical formulations and comparative analysis. However, they face specific challenges in RNA analysis. Evolutionary pressures often act on base-pairing patterns rather than individual positions, and conserved RNA structures can still exhibit important differences across species [38]. Moreover, the degree to which RNA MSAs can inform us about RNA structure depends strongly on the type of RNA, with structurally relevant signals in messenger RNAs often confounded by the codon organisation patterns [39]. Additionally, erroneously including pseudogenes in ribozyme or ribosomal RNA alignments can destroy the covariation
signals [38]. These difficulties, together with the paucity and low quality of RNA sequence data, may introduce biases and limitations in structural prediction methods relying on MSAs [40]. This has prompted efforts to develop improved automated and standardised tools for RNA sequence search, alignment and quality assessment [41].

In protein-RNA complexes, strongly covarying pairs have been identified within the protein interface [42] or the RNA interface [38]. However, identifying evolutionary pairwise couplings directly between interacting nucleic acids and amino acids remains difficult. The requirement for large coupled alignments limits the applicability of this strategy to a few bacterial complex families [43] and yields only slightly better than random predictive performance when benchmarked against dozens of complexes [44]. Despite these limitations in detecting direct evolutionary couplings, systematic analyses of protein-NA interface conservation have revealed important patterns. Functional NA binding sites at protein surfaces show distinct conservation profiles that correlate with their biological roles [45], while detailed analysis of protein-RNA interfaces has uncovered conserved contact patterns encompassing both geometric and chemical features [46]. Distance-based and apolar contacts in protein-RNA were found strongly conserved even between structural homologs sharing less than 20 % sequence identity, with non-conserved contacts representing a lower proportion than in protein-protein interfaces [46]. Such findings can inform which interaction patterns are effectively transferable between remote structural homologs by deep learning methods.

## Inverting the problem: designing RNA for known proteins

Beyond 3D structure prediction, the *de novo* design of idealised biomolecular shapes can reveal new insights about physical and structural constraints that might remain hidden when merely analysing natural proteins and nucleic acids [47]. Improving our ability to engineer functional protein-NA complexes can thus improve our understanding of their sequence-structure relationship. In recent years, several deep learning architectures have been developed to address this challenge (Figure 1b, d and Table 2).

Moving one step forward from simply designing RNA sequences that fold into a specific target 3D structure, the CARD method guides the design with knowledge about an interacting protein [26]. Specifically, CARD first encodes the target RNA structure with a Geometric Vector Perceptron Graph Neural Network (GVP-GNN) [48], which ensures SE(3)-equivariance, and then enhances this representation by attending to interacting protein residues converted into embeddings with a pre-

trained protein LM. It achieves a higher recovery rate and macro F1 compared to inverse design methods that do not condition on a bound protein [26]. Taking this concept further, a few pioneering works have explored protein-conditioned co-design of NA sequence and structure [22,27,33,49], where the NA structure is not predetermined but emerges from the binding requirements to the target protein (Figure 1b,d, left panels). RNAFlow [27] leverages the flexibility of flow matching [50] to perform this task. Like CARD, it uses GVP-GNN to encode the input protein structure and a noisy version of the RNA bound to it, and then auto-regressively decodes an RNA sequence. The designed sequence is folded using RoseTTAFold2NA [8], which effectively serves as a denoiser and enables joint sequence and structure supervision. The method optionally exploits 3D conformations interpolated during flow matching, a strategy achieving high sequence recovery in motif scaffolding design tasks even at distant positions. Nonetheless, structural accuracy remains low. Recent developments have proposed energy-based iterative refinement with explicit bio-physical constraints to improve stereochemical quality, albeit with modest success [33].

Alternative approaches avoid dealing with the complexities of RNA 3D structure and instead focus on generating sequences conditioned on varying levels of protein structural data (Figure 1b,d, middle panels). The RNA Bidirectional Anchored Generation (BAnG) [28] introduces novel anchor tokens, representing the putative RNA binding site, from which it autoregressively generates the RNA sequence in both directions. To cope with the limited protein-RNA complex structural data in the PDB, RNA-BAnG leverages data augmentation by including DNA sequences and through a warm-up sequence reconstruction-only training phase over RNAcentral [51]. As a result, it enables out-of-the-box RNA sequence generation for any protein with a known or predicted structure. In contrast, RNAtranslator avoids relying on any structural information altogether [29]. It reframes protein-conditional RNA design as a sequence-to-sequence natural language translation problem: it translates an input protein sequence into a novel RNA binding sequence in an end-to-end fashion (Figure 1b,d, right panels). RNAtranslator is pre-trained on millions of experimental and predicted protein-RNA interacting pairs from the RNAInter Database [52], and then fine-tuned on experimentally validated pairs.

Paralleling the development of these design-oriented architectures, some works have aimed at re-purposing state-of-the-art biomolecular structure predictors methods for hallucination-based binder design [53,25] (Figure 1a, in purple). Recent improvements of the optimisation objective have been showcased through
<table><caption>Table 2</caption><caption>Deep learning approaches for protein-conditioned RNA design. We list a selection of methods discussed in this review.</caption><thead><tr><th>Method</th><th>Architecture</th><th>Strengths</th><th>Weaknesses</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>From RNA struct and protein seq & struct, design RNA seq</strong><br>CARD [26]</td><td>GVP-GNN enhanced with pLM embeddings, transformer self-attention and decoder</td><td>Improves recovery and macro F1</td><td>Limited availability of training and evaluation data</td></tr><tr><td><strong>From protein seq & struct, co-design RNA seq & struct</strong><br>RNAFlow [27]</td><td>Noise-to-sequence GVP-GNN stacked with RF2NA within flow-matching framework</td><td>can condition on multiple interpolated conformations, high sequence recovery far from binding motif</td><td>Low structural accuracy</td></tr><tr><td>RNA-EFM [33]</td><td>Adapted from RNAFlow, refinement with biophysical energy constraints</td><td>Explicit account of stereochemical realism</td><td>Low structural accuracy</td></tr><tr><td><strong>From protein seq & struct, design RNA seq only</strong><br>RNA-BAnG [28]</td><td>bidirectional autoregressive generation, geometric attention (IPA) from AF2</td><td>Alleviates the need for binding site definition while keeping it as model constraint</td><td>No experimental validation of the predictions</td></tr><tr><td><strong>From protein seq only, design RNA seq only</strong><br>RNAtranslator [29]</td><td>Classical encoder-decoder transformer</td><td>Avoids dealing with geometry, generalises to novel or synthetic proteins</td><td>No experimental validation of the predictions, limited scalability</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Leveraging HTS data and large corpus of RNA seq to design RNA seq</strong><br>AptaDiff [34]</td><td>VAE trained on SELEX libraries, discrete diffusion conditioned on the latent space</td><td>Leverages motif dependent-embeddings</td><td>Lack of end-to-end training</td></tr><tr><td>GenerRNA [35]</td><td>Decoder-only transformer, fine-tuned on CLIP data</td><td>General-purpose LM</td><td>Low resolution, no experimental validation of the predictions</td></tr><tr><td>RNAGenesis [36]</td><td>Transformer enhanced with latent diffusion, fine-tuned on SELEX data</td><td>General-purpose LM, both compact and high-resolution</td><td>Does not yet explicitly models DNA or proteins</td></tr></tbody></table>
the design of aptamers that bind to the green fluorescent protein [25]. These promising results constitute a first step toward general-purpose biomolecular design frameworks.

## Integrating high-throughput omics data

The exciting recent advances in profiling interactions between proteins and nucleic acids [54] have generated large volumes of protein-NA interaction data through both *in vitro* and *in vivo* experimental methods. High-throughput omics approaches, including evolutionary selection methods (SELEX), direct binding assays (RNAcompete, RNA Bind-n-Seq), and *in vivo* cross-linking experiments (CLIP-Seq), provide RNA binding motif MSAs that can enrich and complement available structural information [55,56].

Currently, most deep learning methods exploiting protein-RNA omics data aim to model sequence-level binding preferences, without attempting to predict or incorporate structural information. One group of models is trained directly on experimental RNA sequences, including AptaDiff [34], which uses a discrete diffusion process to model SELEX-derived data [57] (Table 2). The diffusion process is conditioned on a latent representation learned via a variational autoencoder (VAE) with a hidden Markov model decoder [58]. Other approaches are not trained from scratch but instead fine-tune pre-trained foundation or general-purpose models using experimental binding data, adapting general representations to specific protein-RNA contexts. For instance, GenerRNA [35] is an RNA language model based on the GPT-2 architecture [59] pre-trained on RNAcentral data [51] and fine-tuned on RNAcompete and CLIP datasets. It utilises byte-pair encoding (BPE) tokenisation to compress the input sequences, at the expense of resolution. A second example is given by RNAGenesis [36], which is first pre-trained on large RNA sequence collections, including RNAcentral and the non-coding RNA subset of Ensembl [60], and then fine-tuned on a SELEX-derived dataset. RNAGenesis enhances the classical encoder-decoder transformer architecture by mapping the embeddings computed by the encoder into fixed-length latent vectors subjected to continuous denoising diffusion before decoding the output sequences. Moreover, it achieves both high compactness and high resolution through a hybrid n-gram tokenization scheme coupled with 1D Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) of varying kernel sizes. While these methods typically do not contribute to predicting protein-RNA structures themselves, attention scores between nucleic and amino acids may reflect binding interfaces [61].

Finally, some models incorporate feedback from other predictors to guide or refine the learning process,

combining sequence-based learning with additional insights [62–65]. For instance, FAFormer [65] enables aptamer screening using structure encoding with E(3)-equivariant frame-averaged transformers, exploiting protein and RNA 3D models generated with AlphaFold and RoseTTAFoldNA, respectively.

## Conclusions and future directions

Despite significant advances in deep learning architectures for biomolecular structure prediction, substantial challenges remain in protein-NA structure prediction. Current state-of-the-art methods show limited accuracy when predicting structures outside their training distributions, particularly for RNA aptamers and novel conformations. While architectural innovations continue to emerge, our literature review and our own experience suggest that the choice of specific encoder and decoder designs may contribute less to predictive success than initially anticipated, with most frameworks demonstrating broadly comparable performance.

The primary determinants of model performance appear to be data quality and task formulation rather than architectural complexity alone. Protein-RNA interaction modeling benefits significantly from high-throughput omics data, which provide training opportunities that remain scarce for other systems such as protein-peptide interactions. However, the field would benefit from more robust, standardised experimental baselines for evaluating predictive performance. Current evaluation frameworks for protein-conditioned RNA design rely heavily on computational predictions, such as protein-RNA affinities estimated with deep learning scoring models.

## Toward better splitting strategies and benchmarking

Deep learning approaches are particularly sensitive to data scarcity and quality issues. For protein-ligand interactions, strategies maximising training data diversity and quality while minimising task-specific leakage have proven valuable for boosting the performance of diffusion-based models [66]. Likewise, we envision that initiatives aiming at establishing comprehensive benchmarks for RNA structure and function modeling could lead to substantial progress. Several recent initiatives have begun to address this need [67,15,32]. RNAGLIB [67] for instance offers seven tasks (with datasets and splits) and a deep learning library for facilitating RNA 3D structure-based modelling. RNAGym [15] assesses the zero-shot performance of 19 baselines on three core tasks. For protein-RNA prediction, it offers a medium-size test set (127 complexes) and quantifies how much performance depends on similarity to the training set and correlates with evolutionary pairwise couplings inferred with a statistical physics approach. The benchmark will benefit from
including more baselines as it is currently limited to AlphaFold3 and RosettaFold2NA for this task. Ludaic and Elofsson [32] additionally evaluated Boltz-1 and HelixFold3 on a few tens of complexes. They showed that prediction accuracy increases with similarity to motifs found in the training set for all methods, confirming that training set similarity remains a critical factor.

## Emerging patterns from language models

The technological breakthroughs achieved recently in self-supervised learning of massive amounts of unlabeled data hold promise for uncovering functional and structural signals in biological sequences [68–70]. Specifically, DNA language models trained to reconstruct genomic sequences at scale are effective in capturing inter-nucleotide dependencies representing RNA pseudoknots and tertiary structure contacts [70]. These models offer several key advantages over traditional methods. Firstly, by inputting single sequences, they provide a means to overcome the scarcity of high-quality MSAs for RNA molecules. The deep learning-powered docking method ProRNA3D-single [71] for instance, which combines protein and RNA sequence embeddings with geometric attention, recovers more native contacts than alignment-based state-of-the-art predictors in the low depth regime. Secondly, LM’s independence from known 3D templates makes them amenable to discovering previously unidentified binding modes and interaction patterns, as evidenced by the fact that some of the true positive contacts they capture are lost upon supervised fine-tuning [70]. Still, one pressing challenge in this direction consists of being able to capture the structural and functional interactions between very distant genomic regions. Indeed, nucleic acid sequences require much wider context compared to the protein ones. And while several architectures are now able to handle very long NA sequences as input, the signal resolution still deteriorates over 100 000 base pairs [72, 73].

## Editorial statement

Given the role as Guest Editor, Elodie Laine had no involvement in the peer review of the article and has no access to information regarding its peer-review. Full responsibility for the editorial process of this article was delegated to Shandar Ahmad.

## Funding

Funded/Co-funded by the European Union (ERC, PROMISE, 101087830). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Funded/Co-funded by the French National

Agency for Research (ANR, France 2030, Post-GenAI@Paris, ANR-23-IACL-0007).

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgements

For the purpose of Open Access, a CC-BY public copyright licence has been applied by the authors to the present document and will be applied to all subsequent versions up to the Author Accepted Manuscript arising from this submission.

## Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

## References

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

* of special interest

** of outstanding interest

1. Rhodes Curran, Balaratnam Sumirtha, Yazdani Kamyar, Seshadri Srinath, Schneekloth John S: **Targeting RNA-protein interactions with small molecules: promise and therapeutic potential. Med Chem Res 2024:1–16.**

2. Burley Stephen K, Bhatt Rusham, Bhikadiya Charmi, Bi Chunxiao, Biester Alison, Biswas Pratyoy, Bittrich Sebastian, Blaumann Santiago, Brown Ronald, Chao Henry, Chithari Vivek Reddy, Craig Paul A, Crichton Gregg V, Duarte Jose M, Dutta Shuchismita, Feng Zukang, Flatt Justin W, Ghosh Sutapa, Goodsell David S, Kramer Green Rachel, Guranovic Vladimir, Henry Jeremy, Hudson Brian P, Joy Michael, Kaelber Jason T, Khokhriakov Igor, Lai Jhih-Siang, Lawson Catherine L, Liang Yuhe, Myers-Turnbull Douglas, Peisach Ezra, Persikova Irina, Piehl Dennis W, Pingale Aditya, Rose Yana, Sagendorf Jared, Sali Andrej, Segura Joan, Sekharan Monica, Shao Chenghua, Smith James, Trumbull Michael, Vallat Brinda, Voigt Maria, Webb Ben, Whetstone Shamara, Wu-Wu Amy, Xing Tongji, Young Jasmine Y, Zalevsky Arthur, Zardecki Christine: **Updated resources for exploring experimentally-determined pdb structures and computed structure models at the rcsb protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2024, 53:D564–D574. ISSN 1362-4962.**

3. Berman HM: **The protein data bank.** Nucleic Acids Res January 2000, 28:235–242. ISSN 13624962.

4. Cao Xinang, Zhang Yueying, Ding Yiliang, Wan Yue: **Identification of RNA structures and their roles in RNA functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2024, 25:784–801.**

5. Hennig Janosch: **Structural biology of RNA and Protein-RNA complexes after AlphaFold. Chembiochem 2025, 26, e202401047.**

6. Callaway Ewen: **Chemistry nobel goes to developers of AlphaFold AI that predicts protein structures. Nature October 2024, 634:525–526. ISSN 0028-0836, 1476-4687.**

7. Laine Elodie, Eismann Stephan, Elofsson Arne, Grudinin Sergei: **Protein sequence-to-structure learning: is this the end (-to-end revolution)? Proteins: Struct, Funct, Bioinf 2021, 89:1770–1786.**

8. Baek Minkyung, McHugh Ryan, Anishchenko Ivan, Jiang Hanlun, Baker David, DiMaio Frank: **Accurate prediction of protein–nucleic acid complexes using RoseTTAFoldNA. Nat**
*Methods* January 2024, **21**:117–121. ISSN 1548-7091, 1548-7105.

Generalisation of RoseTTAFold to predict complexes including both
proteins and nucleic acids. Pioneering work in transferring stat-of-the-
art models for protein structure prediction to nucleic acids.

9. Fuchs Fabian, Worrall Daniel, Fischer Volker, Welling Max: Se (3)-transformers: 3d roto-translation equivariant attention networks. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2020, 33:1970–1981.

10. Abramson Josh, Adler Jonas, Dunger Jack, Evans Richard, Green Tim, Pritzel Alexander, Ronneberger Olaf, Willmore Lindsay, Ballard Andrew J, Bambrick Joshua, Bodenstein Sebastian W, Evans David A, Hung Chia-Chun, O'Neill Michael, Reiman David, Tunyasuvunakool Kathryn, Wu Zachary, Zemgulyte Akvilė, Arvaniti Eirini, Beattie Charles, Bertolli Ottavia, Bridgland Alex, Cherepanov Alexey, Miles Congreve, Cowen-Rivers Alexander I, Cowie Andrew, Figurnov Michael, Fuchs Fabian B, Gladman Hannah, Jain Rishub, Khan Yousuf A, Low Caroline MR, Perlin Kuba, Potapenko Anna, Savy Pascal, Singh Sukhdeep, Stecula Adrian, Thillaisundaram Ashok, Tong Catherine, Yakneen Sergei, Zhong Ellen D, Zielinski Michal, Žídek Augustin, Bapst Victor, Kohli Pushmeet, Jaderberg Max, Hassabis Demis, Jumpers John M: Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature 2024, 630:493–500.

Updated diffusion-based architecture building on AlphaFold2 and capable of modelling complexes including proteins, nucleic acids, small molecules, and ions. Best performer among the generalised models for predicting biomolecular complexes.

11. Wohlwend Jeremy, Corso Gabriele, Passaro Saro, Reveiz Mateo, Leidal Ken, Swiderski Wojtek, Portnoi Tally, Chinn Itamar, Jacob Silterra, Jaakkola Tommi, et al.: Boltz-1 democratizing biomolecular interaction modeling. bioRxiv 2024.

12. Passaro Saro, Corso Gabriele, Wohlwend Jeremy, Reveiz Mateo, Thaler Stephan, Ram Somnath Vignesh, Getz Noah, Portnoi Tally, Roy Julien, Stark Hannes, et al.: Boltz-2: towards accurate and efficient binding affinity prediction. bioRxiv 2025:2025. 06.

13. Kretsch Rachael C, Hummer Alissa M, He Shujun, Yuan Rongqing, Zhang Jing, Karagianes Thomas, Cong Qian, Kryshtafovych Andriy, Das Rhiju: Assessment of nucleic acid structure prediction in CASP16. bioRxiv 2025:2025. 05.

14. **CASP16 organizing committee.** *CASP16 abstracts*. 2024. https://predictioncenter.org/casp16/doc/CASP16 Abstracts.pdf. Accessed: [date].

15. Arora Rohit, Angelo Murphy, Choe Christian Andrew, Shearer Courtney, Kollasch Aaron, Qu Fiona, Weitzman Ruben, Gazizov Artem, Gurev Sarah, Xie Erik, Marks Debora S, RNAGym Pascal Notin: Large-scale benchmarks for RNA fitness and structure prediction. bioRxiv 2025:2025. 06.

16. Chen Huimin, Meisburger Steve P, Pabit Suzette A, Sutton Julie L, Webb Watt W, Pollack Lois: Ionic strength-dependent persistence lengths of single-stranded RNA and DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012, 109:799–804.

17. Spitale Robert C, Incarnato Danny: Probing the dynamic RNA structurome and its functions. Nat Rev Genet 2023, 24: 178-196.

18. Vicens Quentin, Kieft Jeffrey S: Thoughts on how to think (and talk) about RNA structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2022, 119, e2112677119.

19. Ganser Laura R, Kelly Megan L, Herschlag Daniel, Al-Hashimi Hashim M: The roles of structural dynamics in the cellular functions of RNAs. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2019, 20: 474-489.

20. Antson Alfred A: Single stranded rna binding proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2000, 10:87-94.

21. Moniot Antoine, Guermeur Yann, Jacob de Vries Sjoerd, Beauchene Isaure Chauvot de: **Protnaff: protein-bound nucleic acid filters and fragment libraries.** Bioinformatics 2022, **38**:3911–3917, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btc430. ISSN 1367-4803. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btc430.

22. Guo Gaoxing, Guo Liangwei, Qian Jiaqiang, He Xiaoming, Qian Xinzhou, Wang Lei, Huang Qiang: De novo design of protein-binding aptamers through deep reinforcement learning assembly of nucleic acid fragments. bioRxiv 2025, 2025-06.

23. Yacoub Taher, González-Alemán Roy, Leclerc Fabrice, Chauvot de Beauchêne Isaure, Ponty Yann: Color coding for the fragment-based docking, design and equilibrium statistics of protein-binding ssrnas. In International conference on research in computational molecular biology. Springer; 2024: 147–163.

24. Kappel Kalli, Das Rhiju: Sampling native-like structures of RNA-protein complexes through Rosetta folding and docking. Structure 2019, 27:140–151.

25. Nori Divya, Parsan Anisha, Uhler Caroline, Jin Wengong: Bind-EnergyCraft: casting protein structure predictors as energy-based models for binder design. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2505.21241 2025.

26. Zhang Zixun, Zheng Jiayou, Zhou Yuzhe, Wang Sheng, Cui Shuguang, Li Zhen: Beyond RNA structure alone: complex-aware feature fusion for tertiary structure-based RNA design. bioRxiv 2025, 2025-02.

27. Nori Divya, Jin Wengong: RNAFlow: RNA structure & sequence design via inverse folding-based flow matching. In Proceedings of the 41st international conference on machine learning, ICML '24. Vienna, Austria: JMLR.org; July 2024: 38395–38407. URL, https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/nori24a.html.

RNA sequence and structure co-design conditioned on a given protein, specified by its amino acid sequence and 3D coordinates. This work also introduces a traj-to-seq framework at inference time, where several RNA intermediate conformations along the interpolation trajectory are inputted to a sequence decoder.

28. Klypa Roman, Bietti Alberto, Grudinin Sergei: BAnG: bidirectional anchored generation for conditional RNA design. In Proceedings of the 42nd international conference on machine learning. Vancouver, Canada: ICML '25; July 2025. URL, https://icml.cc/virtual/2025/poster/44645.Posterpresentation.

Generative model for predicting RNA sequences competent to bind a specific input protein, specified by its amino acid sequence and 3D coordinates. This work introduces new anchor token and associated attention mask enabling bidirectional RNA sequence generation from a putative binding motif.

29. Shukueian Tabrizi Sobhan, Barazandeh Sina, Ahghad Helyasadat Hashemi, Cicek A Ercument: RNAtranslator: modeling protein-conditional RNA design as sequence-to-sequence natural language translation. bioRxiv 2025:2025. 03.

30. Krishna Rohith, Wang Jue, Ahern Woody, Sturmfels Pascal, Venkatesh Preetham, Kalvet Indrek, Lee Gyu Rie, Morey-Burrows Felix S, Anishchenko Ivan, Humphreys Ian R, et al.: Generalized biomolecular modeling and design with RoseTTAFold all-atom. Science 2024, 384, eadl2528.

31. Liu Lihang, Zhang Shanzhuo, Yang Xue, Ye Xianbin, Zhu Kunrui, Li Yuxin, Liu Yang, Gao Jie, Zhao Wenlai, Yu Hongkun, et al.: Technical report of HelixFold3 for biomolecular structure prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv 2024. 2408.16975.

32. Ludaic Marko, Elofsson Arne: Limits of deep-learning-based RNA prediction methods. bioRxiv 2025, 2025-04.

33. Rahman Abir Abrar, Zhang Liqing: RNA-EFM: energy based flow matching for protein-conditioned RNA sequence-structure Co-design. bioRxiv 2025, 2025-02.

34. Wang Zhen, Liu Ziqi, Zhang Wei, Li Yanjun, Feng Yizhen, Lv Shaokang, Diao Han, Luo Zhaofeng, Yan Pengju, He Min: AptaDiff: de novo design and optimization of aptamers based on diffusion models. Briefings Bioinf 2024, 25, bbae517. Publisher: Oxford University Press.

35. Zhao Yichong, Oono Kenta, Takizawa Hiroki, Kotera Masaaki: **GenerRNA: a generative pre-trained language model for de novo RNA design.** PLoS One October 2024, 19, e0310814, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310814. ISSN 1932-6203, https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310814.
36. Zhang Zaixi, Chao Linlin, Jin RuoFan, Zhang Yikun,
* Zhou Guowei, Yang Yujie, Yang Yukang, Huang Kaixuan,
Yang Qirong, Xu Ziyao: **RNAGenesis: Foundation model for
enhanced RNA sequence generation and structural in-
sights.** bioRxiv 2024:2024. Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory.

Generalist RNA foundation model achieving both high compactness and high resolution, and dealing with multiple modalities. The authors demonstrate RNAGenesis applicability to a broad range of tasks, introducing novel benchmarks and performing wet lab experiments.

37. Yamashita Seisuke, Tomita Kozo: **Cryo-EM structure of human
TUT1:U6 snRNA complex.** Nucleic Acids Res 2025, 53,
gkae1314. ISSN 1362-4962.

38. Rivas Elena: **Evolutionary conservation of rna sequence and
structure.** Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: RNA 2021, 12,
e1649.

39. Szikszai Marcell, Magnus Marcin, Kadyan Sachin, Rivas Elena: **On inputs to deep learning for RNA 3D structure prediction.** bioRxiv 2025:2025. 02.

40. Das Rhiju, Kretsch Rachael C, Simpkin Adam J,
Mulvaney Thomas, Pham Phillip, Rangan Ramya, Bu Fan,
Keegan Ronan M, Topf Maya, Rigden Daniel J, Miao Zhichao,
Westhof Eric: **Assessment of three-dimensional RNA struc-
ture prediction in CASP15.** preprint. Biophysics April 2023.
http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2023.04.25.538330; April
2023.

41. Magnus Marcin, Gao William, Dutta Nivedita, Vicens Quentin,
* Rivas Elena: **RNAhub—an automated pipeline to search and
align RNA homologs with secondary structure assessment.**
Nucleic Acids Res 2025, gkaf342, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/
gkaf342. ISSN 1362-4962. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaf342.

Web-based tool for automating and standardising RNA sequence search and alignment. In addition, the tool assesses the amount of co-variation signals relevant for structure and the overall quality of the alignment.

42. Hopf Thomas A, Ingraham John B, Poelwijk Frank J,
Schärfe Charlotta PI, Springer Michael, Sander Chris,
Marks Debora S: **Mutation effects predicted from sequence
co-variation.** Nat Biotechnol 2017, 35:128–135.

43. Weinreb Caleb, Riesselman Adam J, Ingraham John B,
Gross Torsten, Sander Chris, Marks Debora S: **3D RNA and
functional interactions from evolutionary couplings.** Cell
2016, 165:963–975.

44. Jiang Jiuhong, Zhang Xing, Zhan Jian, Miao Zhichao,
Zhou Yaoqi: **RPcontact: improved prediction of RNA-protein
contacts using RNA and protein language models.** bioRxiv
2025, 2025–06.

45. Corsi Flavia, Lavery Richard, Laine Elodie, Carbone Alessandra: **Multiple protein-DNA interfaces unravelled by evolutionary information, physico-chemical and geometrical properties.** PLoS Comput Biol 2020, 16, e1007624.

46. Mahmoudi Ikram, Quignot Chloé, Martins Carla,
* Andreani Jessica: **Structural comparison of homologous
protein-RNA interfaces reveals widespread overall conser-
vation contrasted with versatility in polar contacts.** PLoS
Comput Biol 2024, 20, e1012650.

Comprehensive analysis of protein-RNA interface conservation be-
tween structural homologs. This study reveals that protein-RNA con-
tacts can be conserved across long evolutionary distances and in
larger proportions than for protein-protein interfaces.

47. Lin Yu-Ru, Koga Nobuyasu, Tatsumi-Koga Rie, Liu Gaohua,
Clouser Amanda F, Montelione Gaetano T, Baker David: **Control
over overall shape and size in de novo designed proteins.**
Proc Natl Acad Sci 2015, 112:E5478–E5485.

48. Jing Bowen, Eismann Stephan, Suriana Patricia,
Townshend Raphael JL, Dror Ron: **Learning from protein
structure with geometric vector perceptrons.** arXiv preprint
arXiv:2009.01411 2020.

49. Morehead Alex, Ruffolo Jeffrey, Bhatnagar Aadyot, Ali Madani: **Towards joint sequence-structure generation of nucleic acid and protein complexes with se (3)-discrete diffusion.** arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06151 2023.

50. Lipman Yaron, Chen Ricky TQ, Ben-Hamu Heli,
Nickel Maximilian, Le Matt: **Flow matching for generative
modeling.** arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747 2022.

51. RNAcentral Consortium The, Sweeney Blake A, Petrov Anton I,
Burkov Boris, Finn Robert D, Bateman Alex, Szymanski Maciej,
Karlowski Wojciech M, Gorodkin Jan, Seemann Stefan E,
Cannone Jamie J, Gutell Robin R, Fey Petra, Basu Siddhartha,
Kay Simon, Cochrane Guy, Billis Kostantinos, Emmert David,
Marygold Steven J, Huntley Rachael P, Lovering Ruth C,
Frankish Adam, Chan Patricia P, Lowe Todd M, Bruford Elspeth,
Seal Ruth, Vandesompele Jo, Volders Pieter-Jan,
Paraskevopoulou Maria, Ma Lina, Zhang Zhang, Griffiths-
Jones Sam, Bujnicki Janusz M, Boccaletto Pietro, Blake Judith A,
Bult Carol J, Chen Runsheng, Zhao Yi, Wood Valerie,
Kim Rutherford, Rivas Elena, Cole James, Laudekind Stanley
JF, Shimoyama Mary, Gillespie Marc E, Orlic-Milacic Marija,
Kalvari Ioanna, Nawrocki Eric, Engel Stacia R, Cherry J Michael,
Team Silva, Berardini Tanya Z, Hatzigeorgiou Artemis,
Karagkouni Dimitra, Howe Kevin, Davis Paul, Dinger Marcel,
He Shunmin, Yoshihama Maki, Kenmochi Naoya, Stadler Peter
F, Kelly P Williams: **RNAcentral: a hub of information for non-
coding RNA sequences.** Nucleic Acids Res January 2019, 47:
D221–D229, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1034. ISSN 0305-
1048, 1362-4962, https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/D1/
D221/5160993.

52. Kang Juanjuan, Tang Qiang, He Jun, Li Le, Yang Nianling,
Yu Shuiyan, Wang Mengyao, Zhang Yuchen, Lin Jiahao,
Cui Tianyu, et al.: **RNAInter v4. 0: RNA interactome repository
with redefined confidence scoring system and improved
accessibility.** Nucleic Acids Res 2022, 50:D326–D332.

53. Cho Yehlin, Pacesa Martin, Zhang Zhidian, Correia Bruno E,
Ovchinnikov Sergey: **Boltzdesign1: inverting all-atom struc-
ture prediction model for generalized biomolecular binder
design.** bioRxiv 2025:2025. 04.

54. Cozzolino Flora, Iacobucci Ilaria, Monaco Vittoria, Monti Maria: **Protein–DNA/RNA interactions: an overview of investigation methods in the-omics era.** J Proteome Res 2021, 20: 3018–3030.

55. Corrado Gianluca, Uhl Michael, Backofen Rolf, Passerini Andrea,
Costa Fabrizio: **ProtScan: modeling and prediction of RNA-
Protein interactions.** arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20933 2024.

56. Tripto Eitamar, Orenstein Yaron: **A comparative analysis of RNA-binding proteins binding models learned from RNAacompete, RNA Bind-n-Seq and eCLIP data.** Briefings Bioinf 2021, 22, bbab149.

57. Craig Tuerk, Gold Larry: **Systematic evolution of ligands by
exponential enrichment: RNA ligands to bacteriophage T4
DNA polymerase.** science 1990, 249:505–510.

58. Iwano Natsuki, Adachi Tatsuoc, Aoki Kazuteru,
Nakamura Yoshikazuc, RaptGen Michiaki Hamada: **A variational autoencoder with profile hidden Markov model for generative aptamer discovery.** bioRxiv 2021, 2021–02.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

59. Radford Alec, Wu Jeffrey, Child Rewon, Luan David,
Amodei Dario, Sutskever Ilya, et al.: **Language models are
unsupervised multitask learners.** OpenAI blog 2019, 1:9.

60. Dyer Sarah C, Austine-Orimoloye Olanrewaju, Azov Andrey G,
Barba Matthieu, Barnes If, Paola Barrera-Enriquez Vianey,
Becker Arne, Bennett Ruth, Beracochea Martin, Berry Andrew,
et al.: **Ensembl 2025.** Nucleic Acids Res 2025, 53:D948–D957.

61. Sawan Patel, Keith Fraser, Zhangzhi Peng, Adam D Friedman,
Owen Yao, Pranam Chatterjee, and Sherwood Yao. AptaBLE: a
deep learning platform for SELEX optimization. In NeurIPS 2024
workshop on AI for new drug modalities.

62. Ozden Furkan, Barazandeh Sina, Akboga Dogus, Shokoueian
Tabrizi Sobhan, Seker Urartu Ozgur Safak, Ercument Cicek A:
RNAGEN: a generative adversarial network-based model to
generate synthetic RNA sequences to target proteins. July 2023.
URL, http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2023.07.11.548246.

63. Alipanahi Babak, Delong Andrew, Weirauch Matthew T,
Frey Brendan J: **Predicting the sequence specificities of DNA-
and RNA-binding proteins by deep learning.** Nat Biotechnol
2015, 33:831–838.
64. Andress Cameron, Kappel Kalli, Villena Marcus Elbert, Cuper-lovic-Culf Miroslava, Yan Hongbin, Li Yifeng: **DAPTEV: deep aptamer evolutionary modelling for COVID-19 drug design.** *PLoS Comput Biol* July 2023, **19**, e1010774, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010774.

65. Huang Tinglin, Song Zhenqiao, Ying Rex, Jin Wengong: **Protein-Nucleic acid complex modeling with frame averaging transformer.** In *Inc. Curran associates*, vol. 37. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; December 2024. Vancouver, Canada, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.09586.

66. Durairaj Janani, Adeshina Yusuf, Cao Zhonglin, Zhang Xuejin, Oleinikovas Vladas, Duignan Thomas, McClure Zachary, Robin Xavier, Kovtun Daniel, Rossi Emanuele, et al.: **PLINDER: the protein-ligand interactions dataset and evaluation resource.** *bioRxiv* 2024:2024. 07.

67. Wyss Luis, Vincent Mallet, Karroucha Wissam,
* Borgwardt Karsten, Oliver Carlos: **A comprehensive benchmark for RNA 3D structure-function modeling.** *arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21681* 2025.

Benchmark for RNA structure–function prediction. This work in-
troduces seven tasks and datasets, including a couple linked to
protein-RNA interactions, along with appropriate splitting strategies. It
also provides a modular library facilitating customisation and RNA
encoding.

68. Patel Sawan, Peng Fred Zhangzhi, Fraser Keith, Friedman Adam D, Chatterjee Pranam, Yao Sherwood: **EvoFlow-RNA: generating and representing non-coding RNA with a language model.** *bioRxiv* 2025, 2025–02.

69. Nguyen Eric, Poli Michael, Durrant Matthew G, Kang Brian, Katrekar Dhruva, Li David B, Bartie Liam J, Thomas Armin W, King Samuel H, Brixi Garyk, et al.: **Sequence modeling and design from molecular to genome scale with Evo. Science** 2024, 386, eado9336.

70. da Silva Pedro Tomaz, Karollus Alexander, Hingerl Johannes,
* Galindez Gannah, Wagner Nils, Hernandez-Alias Xavier,
Incarnato Danny, Gagneur Julien: **Nucleotide dependency
analysis of DNA language models reveals genomic func-
tional elements.** *bioRxiv* 2024:2024. 07.

Probing of DNA language models with inter-nucleotide dependency
maps. This study highlights the relevance of such dependencies,
arising from models trained in a self-supervised fashion, for RNA
structure prediction.

71. Roche Rahmatullah, Tarafder Sumit, Bhattacharya Debswapna: **Single-sequence protein-RNA complex structure prediction by geometric attention-enabled pairing of biological language models.** *bioRxiv* 2024.

72. Brixi Garyk, Durrant Matthew G, Ku Jerome, Poli Michael, Brockman Greg, Chang Daniel, Gonzalez Gabriel A, King Samuel H, Li David B, Merchant Aditi T, et al.: **Genome modeling and design across all domains of life with Evo 2.** *bioRxiv* 2025, 2025–02.

73. Nguyen Eric, Poli Michael, Faizi Marjan, Thomas Armin, Wornow Michael, Birch-Sykes Callum, Massaroli Stefano, Patel Aman, Clayton Rabideau, Bengio Yoshua, et al.: **HyenaDNA: long-range genomic sequence modeling at single nucleotide resolution.** *Adv Neural Inf Process Syst* 2023, 36:43177–43201.