THE IMMUNE MAP OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS: A SPATIALLY-RESOLVED KIDNEY PROTEOMIC APPROACH
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
O059 / #244 Topic:AS16 - Lupus Nephritis-Pathogenesis ABSTRACT CONCURRENT SESSION 10: INTEGRATING PROTEOMIC & TRANSCRIPTOMICS IN SLE 24-05-2025 10:40 AM - 11:40 AM Background/Purpose Treatment response in lupus nephritis (LN) remain inadequately low, highlighting the need for better understanding of LN pathogenesis to improve management. Single-cell transcriptomic studies are providing an unprecedented catalog of cell states in LN, yet their spatial organization is not well understood. Since structure underlies function, we aim to map the spatial organization of immune cells in LN. Methods We developed a serial immunohistochemistry (sIHC) workflow (18-plex), followed by imaging and destaining cycles. Image processing was performed using HALO (Indica Labs), including AI-assisted tissue classification. PCA was used for dimensional reduction, and KNN and SNN algorithms were applied to identify immune cell types based on their markers’ fluorescent intensity. Immune cell aggregates in the tissues were defined using DBSCAN as a minimum of 3 cells within a radius (epsilon) of 50 μm to infer interactions between cells. Aggregate sizes were categorized into small (3-29 cells), medium (30-99 cells), and large (>100 cells) based on the frequency distribution (Figure 1A,B). The proportion of immune cell types in each aggregate was used for K-means clustering to determine aggregate subtypes. Clinical features were correlated with each aggregate subtype using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (Figure 2). Figure 1. Demographics of intrarenal immune cell aggregates. (A) Digitalized biopsy showing an example of the distribution of immune cells in LN. (B) Examples of intrarenal immune cell aggregates of different sizes. (C) Distribution of aggregates by size and by total cells. (D) Distribution of aggregates by size and region. (E) Density of aggregate types according to size and class. Figure 2. Correlation between aggregate subtypes and clinical features. Left heatmaps show aggregates subtypes. Middle heatmaps display the average density of aggregate subtypes (average number of aggregates/mm²). Right heatmaps show the correlation matrices between the aggregate subtypes and clinical features. (A) Glomerular small aggregate (B) Tubulointerstitial small aggregate (C) Tubulointerstitial medium aggregate (D) Tubulointerstitial large aggregate. Act: NIH activity index; Chr: NIH Chronicity Index. Results In this analysis, we included 29 kidney biopsies of LN resulting in 1,913,845 cells (182,783 immune cells). We identified 12,371 cellular aggregates. Most (97%) aggregates were small (<30 cells) (Figure 1C,D); however, medium and large aggregates included 33.7% of immune cells. Glomerular aggregates were numerically increased in proliferative and mixed classes (Figure 1E). These were small and primarily composed of CD68+ myeloid cells (Figure 2A). Glomerular aggregates rich in CD68+ cells negatively correlated with UPCR, while aggregates rich in lymphocytes negatively correlated with chronicity (Figure 2A). In contrast, tubulointerstitial (TI) aggregate density was similar across LN classes (Figure 1E) and negatively correlated with GFR. Significant heterogeneity in aggregate composition revealed >10 aggregate subtypes according to composition and size (Figure 2). Small aggregates tended to be restricted to 1-2 cell types each, while medium and large aggregates included mixed proportions of CD4+ T, CD8+ T, B, dendritic, myeloid, and plasma cells, suggesting germinal center-like structures (Figure 2). Distinct TI aggregate subtypes associated with specific clinical and pathological features (Figure 2B,C). Conclusions We describe the heterogeneity in glomerular and TI immune cell structures in LN, offering insights into LN pathological processes and potential cellular interactions based on proximity. TI inflammation appears similar in membranous and proliferative LN, yet specific immune structures are linked to distinct clinical and pathological features.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».