Back

Mechanotransduction-Aware Causal Omics on Tissue Scaffolds: A Controlled Mechanochemical Framework for Identifying Disease Genes Beyond Pure Omics Analysis

Xu, T.; Hu, Z.; Sun, X.; Xiong, M.

2026-04-22 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.04.19.719528 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Omics-based disease-gene discovery is typically performed as if molecular states evolve independently of tissue mechanics. Most current pipelines analyze transcriptomic or multimodal molecular data alone and identify abnormal genes using differential expressions, latent trajectories, or association-based recovery under treatment. However, in mechanically active tissues, gene expression is shaped not only by internal regulatory networks but also by mechanotransduction arising from strain, curvature, force transmission, and scaffold geometry. This raises a fundamental question: should disease-gene identification in tissues be treated as a pure omics association problem, or as a causal mechanochemical inference problem? We introduce a mechanotransduction-aware causal omics framework on a Cosserat tissue scaffold. Gene expression evolves through intrinsic regulatory dynamics, spatial diffusion, external control, and a mechanotransduction term driven by scaffold mechanics. To distinguish causation from association, we define a hidden mechano-drug rescue channel in the true data-generating system and compare predictive models that either include or omit mechanotransduction. We show that association-based rankings can incorrectly elevate downstream homeostatic or repair genes, even when the disease gene is the true direct mechanochemical target. By contrast, a causal ranking based on reconstruction of the direct mechanotransduction intervention effect correctly identifies the disease gene as the strongest beneficiary. These results argue that popular pure-omics analysis is insufficient for disease-gene discovery in mechanically structured tissues. Mechanotransduction should be modeled as part of the causal structure of tissue biology rather than treated as a secondary covariate or omitted entirely.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
41.4%
2
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 25%
7.5%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 13%
5.1%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 6%
5.1%
5
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 8%
3.2%
6
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 10%
2.7%
7
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 11%
2.6%
8
Nature Methods
336 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.2%
9
Nature Biotechnology
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.2%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.0%
11
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
12
Neuron
282 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
13
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
PRX Life
34 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
15
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.2%
16
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.0%
17
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
18
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 69%
0.9%
19
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.8%
20
Nature Computational Science
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
22
Neural Computation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
23
Development
440 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
24
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
27
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
28
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
Molecular Systems Biology
142 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%