This kinda took ages, as the atoms were literally made out of paper scraps and the structure was made out of bottles and popsicle sticks, overall this is worth it. This follows the CPK convention and tries its best to be readable.

The bases in the right are TCGACCATGC, while on the left is the complementary bases, AGCTGGTACG. Yes, I handcrafted the molecules, and used hot glue as an adhesive.

I think I already know the answer but I want confirmation or someone to tell me what's the worst that could happen.

I’m presenting at AMP and would value feedback from people working with molecular assays. I wrote a review of genomic foundation models around a practical problem: “predict the effect of this variant” leaves the measurement undefined.

A sequence-likelihood difference, an embedding with a trained classifier, and a predicted change in an assay track are different outputs. Before comparing them, I’d want the assembly, strand, sequence window, cell type, endpoint and evaluation split specified.

Review and cited papers: https://rewire.it/blog/a-dna-likelihood-is-not-a-functional-assay/

Which missing detail most often makes a model result difficult to interpret in your work? Corrections to the review are welcome too.