Deconvolving the contributions of cell-type heterogeneity on cortical gene expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complexity of cell-type composition has created much skepticism surrounding the interpretation of bulk tissue transcriptomic studies. Recent studies have shown that deconvolution algorithms can be applied to computationally estimate cell-type proportions from gene expression data of bulk blood samples, but their performance when applied to brain tissue is unclear. Here, we have generated an immunohistochemistry (IHC) dataset for five major cell-types from brain tissue of 70 individuals, who also have bulk cortical gene expression data. With the IHC data as the benchmark, this resource enables quantitative assessment of deconvolution algorithms for brain tissue. We apply existing deconvolution algorithms to brain tissue by using marker sets derived from human brain single cell and cell-sorted RNA-seq data. We show that these algorithms can indeed produce informative estimates of constituent cell-type proportions. In fact, neuronal subpopulations can also be estimated from bulk brain tissue samples. Further, we show that including the cell-type proportion estimates as confounding factors is important for reducing false associations between Alzheimer's disease phenotypes and gene expression. Lastly, we demonstrate that using more accurate marker sets can substantially improve statistical power in detecting cell-type specific expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".