From sequences to images: Deep feature extraction for transposable element classification


Abstract

Transposable elements (TEs) play a fundamental role in genome evolution and contribute significantly to genetic diversity. However, their automatic classification remains challenging due to their high structural diversity and the lack of effective computational representations. In this study, we explored the potential of deep features extracted for TE sequence classification and introduced the use of general-purpose convolutional neural networks (ResNet50RS, InceptionV3, EfficientNetB0, and VGG16) to leverage their deep feature representations. To enable this integration, we proposed a two-dimensional image-based representation of TEs sequences designed to capture relevant structural and compositional patterns. These deep features were combined with classical machine learning algorithms to identify the most effective hybrid configurations, bridging traditional and modern deep learning approaches. We also evaluated end-to-end CNN models using the same representation, demonstrating that TE classification can be achieved without relying solely on specialized architectures. Experiments were conducted on five taxonomic datasets derived from multiple sources, including RepBase, covering both order- and superfamily-level classifications. The integration of deep features extracted by the state-of-the-art Transposable Elements Representation Learner (TERL) with a Random Forest classifier achieved the strongest overall performance, attaining a macro accuracy of 0.953, precision of 0.749, and F1-score of 0.717 on Dataset 3. Among general-purpose CNN architectures, ResNet50RS demonstrated the most robust and consistent behavior, surpassing TERL in superfamily-level classification tasks. Collectively, the results validate a generalizable 2D image-based representation that is fully compatible with modern CNNs, reducing dependence on domain-specific tools while revealing the untapped potential of transferable deep features. The proposed framework establishes a scalable foundation for future genomic classification pipelines, fostering feature reuse, transfer learning, and improved generalization in complex biological settings.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].