Integrative inference of subclonal tumour evolution from single-cell and bulk sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding the evolutionary history and subclonal composition of a tumour represents one of the key challenges in overcoming treatment failure due to resistant cell populations. Most of the current data on tumour genetics stems from short read bulk sequencing data. While this type of data is characterised by low sequencing noise and cost, it consists of aggregate measurements across a large number of cells. It is therefore of limited use for the accurate detection of the distinct cellular populations present in a tumour and the unambiguous inference of their evolutionary relationships. Single-cell DNA sequencing instead provides data of the highest resolution for studying intra-tumour heterogeneity and evolution, but is characterised by higher sequencing costs and elevated noise rates. In this work, we develop the first computational approach that infers trees of tumour evolution from combined single-cell and bulk sequencing data. Using a comprehensive set of simulated data, we show that our approach systematically outperforms existing methods with respect to tree reconstruction accuracy and subclone identification. High fidelity reconstructions are obtained even with a modest number of single cells. We also show that combining single-cell and bulk sequencing data provides more realistic mutation histories for real tumours.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".