Distinct regional ontogeny and activation of tumor associated macrophages in human glioblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) constitute up to 50% of tumor bulk in glioblastoma (GBM) and play an important role in tumor maintenance and progression. The recently discovered differences between invading tumour periphery and hypoxic tumor core implies that macrophage biology is also distinct by location. This may provide further insight into the observed treatment resistance to immune modulation. We hypothesize that macrophage activation occurs through processes that are distinct in tumor periphery versus core. We therefore investigated regional differences in TAM recruitment and evolution in GBM by combining open source single cell and bulk gene expression data. We used single cell gene expression data from 4 glioblastomas (total of 3589 cells) and 122 total bulk samples obtained from 10 different patients. Cell identity, ontogeny (bone-marrow derived macrophages-BMDM vs microglia), and macrophage activation state were inferred using verified gene expression signatures. We captured the spectrum of immune states using cell trajectory analysis with pseudotime ordering. In keeping with previous studies, TAMs carrying BMDM identity were more abundant in tumor bulk while microglia-derived TAMs dominated the tumor periphery across all macrophage activation states including pre-activation. We note that core TAMs evolve towards a pro-inflammatory state and identify a subpopulation of cells based on a gene program exhibiting strong, opposing correlation with Programmed cell Death-1 (PD-1) signaling, which may correlate to their response to PD-1 inhibition. By contrast, peripheral TAMs evolve towards anti-inflammatory phenotype and contains a population of cells strongly associated with NFkB signaling. Our preliminary analysis suggests important regional differences in TAMs with regard to recruitment and evolution. We identify regionally distinct and potentially actionable cell subpopulations and advocate the need for a multi-targeted approach to GBM therapeutics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".