Defining cell-type specificity at the transcriptional level in human disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell-lineage-specific transcripts are essential for differentiated tissue function, implicated in hereditary organ failure, and mediate acquired chronic diseases. However, experimental identification of cell-lineage-specific genes in a genome-scale manner is infeasible for most solid human tissues. We developed the first genome-scale method to identify genes with cell-lineage-specific expression, even in lineages not separable by experimental microdissection. Our machine-learning-based approach leverages high-throughput data from tissue homogenates in a novel iterative statistical framework. We applied this method to chronic kidney disease and identified transcripts specific to podocytes, key cells in the glomerular filter responsible for hereditary and most acquired glomerular kidney disease. In a systematic evaluation of our predictions by immunohistochemistry, our in silico approach was significantly more accurate (65% accuracy in human) than predictions based on direct measurement of in vivo fluorescence-tagged murine podocytes (23%). Our method identified genes implicated as causal in hereditary glomerular disease and involved in molecular pathways of acquired and chronic renal diseases. Furthermore, based on expression analysis of human kidney disease biopsies, we demonstrated that expression of the podocyte genes identified by our approach is significantly related to the degree of renal impairment in patients. Our approach is broadly applicable to define lineage specificity in both cell physiology and human disease contexts. We provide a user-friendly website that enables researchers to apply this method to any cell-lineage or tissue of interest. Identified cell-lineage-specific transcripts are expected to play essential tissue-specific roles in organogenesis and disease and can provide starting points for the development of organ-specific diagnostics and therapies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".