Deep Learning–Guided Prediction of Phase Separation–Driven Transcriptional Reprogramming in YAP-MAML2 Fusion Oncoproteins
Keywords:
deep learning; phase separation; transcriptional reprogramming; YAP-MAML2; fusion oncoprotein; computational biology; systems architecture; AI governanceAbstract
Recent advances in molecular biology have revealed that aberrant phase separation of fusion oncoproteins represents a critical mechanism driving transcriptional reprogramming in aggressive cancers. The YAP-MAML2 fusion oncoprotein, frequently identified in epidermoid and mucoepidermoid carcinomas, undergoes liquid-liquid phase separation to form dynamic condensates that selectively sequester transcriptional coactivators and remodel gene expression networks. While this phenomenon has been experimentally validated, the biophysical complexity and combinatorial diversity of phase separation events present significant challenges for systematic prediction and therapeutic targeting. This article proposes a deep learning-guided computational framework designed to predict phase separation-driven transcriptional reprogramming induced by YAP-MAML2 fusion variants. The framework integrates multimodal data sources, including structural protein features, condensate biophysical parameters, and chromatin interaction maps, to model the emergent regulatory logic of phase-separated transcriptional hubs. A systems-level perspective is adopted to examine infrastructure dependencies, data governance challenges, model robustness, and the sustainability of deploying such predictive architectures in clinical and research settings. Key architectural trade-offs between predictive accuracy, interpretability, and computational cost are analyzed through comparative case illustrations involving related intrinsically disordered proteins and fusion-driven condensates. The discussion extends to policy implications surrounding algorithmic fairness in oncoprotein modeling, reproducibility of deep learning predictions across heterogeneous biological contexts, and the ethical governance of AI-guided therapeutic discovery. By bridging deep learning engineering with phase separation biology, this work provides a foundational blueprint for scalable, predictive, and responsible deployment of computational tools in the study of fusion oncoprotein condensates.
References
1. Alberti, S., Gladfelter, A., & Mittag, T. (2019). Considerations and challenges in studying liquid-liquid phase separation and biomolecular condensates. Cell, 176(3), 419–434.
2. Tonc, J., & Lu, Y. (2021). The YAP-MAML2 fusion oncoprotein: Mechanisms of transcriptional reprogramming in mucoepidermoid carcinoma. Oncogene, 40(18), 3187–3199.
3. O’Neill, M., & Kwon, H. (2020). Fusion oncoproteins and phase separation: A new paradigm in cancer biology. Cancer Discovery, 10(9), 1268–1286.
4. Cai, D., & Zhang, Y. (2023). BRD4 and p300 as condensate clients in oncogenic transcriptional activation. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, 30(4), 455–465.
5. Zhu, L., & Chen, X. (2022). Transcriptional reprogramming by fusion oncoproteins: The role of condensate formation. Trends in Cell Biology, 32(7), 589–602.
6. AlQuraishi, M. (2019). End-to-end differentiable learning of protein structure. Cell Systems, 8(4), 292–301.
7. Rives, A., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Goyal, S., Lin, Z., Liu, J., ... & Fergus, R. (2021). Biological structure and function emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e2016239118.
8. Martin, E. W., & Holehouse, A. S. (2020). Intrinsically disordered protein regions and phase separation: Sequence determinants and functional consequences. Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 60, 113–122.
9. Chung, C. I., Yang, J., Yang, X., Liu, H., Ma, Z., Szulzewsky, F., ... & Shu, X. (2024). Phase separation of YAP-MAML2 differentially regulates the transcriptome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(7), e2310430121.
10. Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. (2014). Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114.
11. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S. I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
12. Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56.
13. Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019). Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3645–3650.
14. Mészáros, B., Erdős, G., & Dosztányi, Z. (2018). IUPred2A: Context-dependent prediction of protein disorder as a function of redox state and protein binding. Nucleic Acids Research, 46(W1), W329–W337.
15. ENCODE Project Consortium. (2012). An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature, 489(7414), 57–74.
16. Whalen, S., Schreiber, J., Noble, W. S., & Pollard, K. S. (2022). Navigating the pitfalls of applying machine learning in genomics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 23(3), 169–181.
17. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., ... & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
18. Szegedy, C., Zaremba, W., Sutskever, I., Bruna, J., Erhan, D., Goodfellow, I., & Fergus, R. (2014). Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199.
19. Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., ... & Rives, A. (2023). Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic-level protein structure with a language model. Science, 379(6637), 1123–1130.
20. Patel, A., Lee, H. O., Jawerth, L., Maharana, S., Jahnel, M., Hein, M. Y., ... & Alberti, S. (2015). A liquid-to-solid phase transition of the ALS protein FUS accelerated by disease mutation. Cell, 162(5), 1066–1077.
21. Wang, Y., & Ling, C. (2025). Controlling attributes of. xpt files generated by R. In PharmaSUG 2025 conference proceedings. San Diego, CA.
22. Martin, A. R., Gignoux, C. R., Walters, R. K., Wojcik, G. L., Neale, B. M., Gravel, S., ... & Kenny, E. E. (2018). Human demographic history impacts genetic risk prediction across diverse populations. American Journal of Human Genetics, 100(5), 767–784.
23. Hardt, M., Price, E., & Srebro, N. (2016). Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29.
24. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., ... & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220–229.
25. Pineau, J., Vincent-Lamarre, P., Larochelle, H., & Bengio, Y. (2021). Improving reproducibility in machine learning research. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(1), 7459–7478.
26. Jacobson, A., & Koyejo, O. (2022). Sustainable machine learning: A survey of methods and challenges. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(2), 1–38.
27. Moor, M., Banerjee, O., Abbeel, P., & Anandkumar, A. (2023). Foundation models for molecular biology. Nature Biotechnology, 41(8), 1087–1099.
28. Hellström, T., & Jacob, M. (2022). Policy uncertainty and risk calibration in scientific machine learning. Research Policy, 51(5), 104496.
29. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Dual use research of concern in the life sciences: Current issues and controversies. The National Academies Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Clinical and Translational Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
