Evaluating the cross-species transferability and scaling of sequence-to-function predictions in AlphaGenome

Deep learning models that predict molecular phenotypes directly from DNA sequence offer a powerful framework for interpreting genomic variation. Recently, AlphaGenome was introduced as a deep sequence-to-function architecture capable of predicting observations that historically required experiments. While the model has shown high accuracy, it was primarily evaluated on human variants scored against a reference genome. Here, we test performance on mouse data, the other species AlphaGenome was trained on although with fivefold fewer features than human (1,128 versus 5,930). We demonstrate that AlphaGenome's predictive performance varies considerably depending on the functional task. Specifically, predicted quantitative expression effects are directionally weak and compressed roughly 100-fold relative to empirical benchmarks across both reconstructed-haplotype and single-variant regimes. In contrast, canonical splice-site disruptions are recognized with near-identical accuracy in mouse and human (AUC 0.96 versus 0.98), displaying no cross-species divergence in predicted effect magnitude. We developed a scoring-approach for AI-agents to autonomously assess AlphaGenome prediction confidence and accurately differentiate between AlphaGenome's robust sequence-level recognition across species and its current limitations when interpreting un-fine-mapped regulatory variants. This demonstrates how GenAI innovations that are still under development can safely be harnessed by wrapping a responsible AI layer around the call to intercept flawed results, thereby adhering to international standards, such as the Australian Voluntary AI Safety Standard (VAISS).