Back

KDM: embedding DNA/RNA motifs and sequences in a shared k-mer space for unified discovery, analysis and binding prediction

Fumagalli, L.; Becchi, T.; Cereda, M.; Pozzoli, U.

2026-06-07 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.05.730329 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Motif discovery and binding-site prediction in DNA and RNA sequences are central tasks in regulatory genomics, yet the methodological landscape is split between interpretable but rigid position weight matrices (PWMs) and high-performing but opaque machine-learning models. We present KDM, a unifying framework in which both motifs and sequences are represented as probability distributions over a shared k-mer dictionary, embedded via the Hellinger transformation. This common geometry enables motif-sequence scoring, motif-motif comparison, de novo discovery, and binding prediction with a single primitive, the Bhattacharyya coefficient. We instantiate four tools on this representation: KDMMap for positional enrichment analysis, KDMMatch for information-content-aware motif matching, KDMFind for unsupervised motif discovery via projective non-negative matrix factorization, and KDM-LRLM for binding prediction with Lasso-regularized logistic regression. Across 1,324 transcription-factor ChIP-seq and 161 RBP eCLIP experiments, KDMMap matches CentriMos motif rankings in 84% of TF and 79% of RBP experiments, and KDMMatch agrees with Tomtom on motif annotation in 74.5% of TFs. On binding prediction across four datasets covering 2,475 experiments, KDM-LRLM matches or exceeds eight deep-learning and three k-mer-based competitors. Notably, AI methods overtake k-mer methods only in the top quartile of training-set size, indicating that data scale, not architecture, drives the recent dominance of deep models. KDM provides a single interpretable representation across the full motif-analysis workflow.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.