Back

MAGI: Mechanistic Consequences of Genetic Variants via Genomic Foundation Models

Ofer, D.; Zok, S.; Linial, M.

2026-06-03 genetics
10.64898/2026.05.31.729117 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Clinical variant interpretation requires mechanism-aware evidence to guide diagnosis and clarify the biological consequences of mutations. However, existing computational predictors and genomic foundation models largely function as black boxes, providing pathogenicity labels with limited mechanistic insight or clinical actionability. Here, we present MAGI (Mechanistic Annotation of Genomic Impacts), a novel method that bridges this interpretability gap by unifying clinically relevant variant interpretation with mechanistic genomic analysis. MAGI pipeline leverages a genomic transformer model to quantify the effects of DNA variants across 3,623 functional tracks, encompassing regulatory features, multi-omics datasets, including tissue specificity and chromatin states, and 21 additional molecular annotations of genes and transcripts. These signals are integrated through a deterministic logic layer that maps single-nucleotide variants and indels to explicit molecular consequences. We benchmark MAGI-derived consequences against clinical rationales curated from ClinVar and observe strong concordance that scales with the magnitude of functional disruption. MAGI accurately recapitulates canonical pathogenic mechanisms, including start codon loss, splice site disruption, and regulatory element perturbation, consistent with ClinVar annotations. We further present case studies addressing conflicting or incomplete mechanistic interpretations, as well as variants requiring complex inference. Notably, MAGI is also applicable to non-human genomes and was evaluated on multispecies OMIA pathogenic variants. Collectively, MAGI establishes a generalizable framework that extends beyond clinical diagnostics to enable mechanistic discovery in functional genomics, generating mechanistically grounded, testable hypotheses for variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and variants with discordant clinical interpretations. In several cases, MAGI proposes alternative explanations that challenge existing annotations, providing transparent rationales and experimentally tractable predictions.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
2
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.0%
3
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
9.1%
4
Nature Biotechnology
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.8%
5
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 4%
6.8%
6
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.8%
8
Nature Methods
336 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.9%
9
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
10
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 9%
3.6%
11
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 28%
2.1%
13
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.1%
14
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Cell
370 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.5%
16
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
17
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.9%
19
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Nature Neuroscience
216 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.9%
22
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.7%
24
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
Nature Computational Science
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.6%