PhISCS: a combinatorial approach for subperfect tumor phylogeny reconstruction via integrative use of single-cell and bulk sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Available computational methods for tumor phylogeny inference via single-cell sequencing (SCS) data typically aim to identify the most likely perfect phylogeny tree satisfying the infinite sites assumption (ISA). However, the limitations of SCS technologies including frequent allele dropout and variable sequence coverage may prohibit a perfect phylogeny. In addition, ISA violations are commonly observed in tumor phylogenies due to the loss of heterozygosity, deletions, and convergent evolution. In order to address such limitations, we introduce the optimal subperfect phylogeny problem which asks to integrate SCS data with matching bulk sequencing data by minimizing a linear combination of potential false negatives (due to allele dropout or variance in sequence coverage), false positives (due to read errors) among mutation calls, and the number of mutations that violate ISA (real or because of incorrect copy number estimation). We then describe a combinatorial formulation to solve this problem which ensures that several lineage constraints imposed by the use of variant allele frequencies (VAFs, derived from bulk sequence data) are satisfied. We express our formulation both in the form of an integer linear program (ILP) and—as a first in tumor phylogeny reconstruction—a Boolean constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) and solve them by leveraging state-of-the-art ILP/CSP solvers. The resulting method, which we name PhISCS, is the first to integrate SCS and bulk sequencing data while accounting for ISA violating mutations. In contrast to the alternative methods, typically based on probabilistic approaches, PhISCS provides a guarantee of optimality in reported solutions. Using simulated and real data sets, we demonstrate that PhISCS is more general and accurate than all available approaches.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".