Transcriptional signatures of cell-cell interactions are dependent on cellular context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cell-cell interactions are often predicted from single-cell transcriptomics data based on observing receptor and corresponding ligand transcripts in cells. These predictions could theoretically be improved by inspecting the transcriptome of the receptor cell for evidence of gene expression changes in response to the ligand. It is commonly expected that a given receptor, in response to ligand activation, will have a characteristic downstream gene expression signature. However, this assumption has not been well tested. We used ligand perturbation data from both the high-throughput Connectivity Map resource and published transcriptomic assays of cell lines and purified cell populations to determine whether ligand signals have unique and generalizable transcriptional signatures across biological conditions. Most of the receptors we analyzed did not have such characteristic gene expression signatures – instead these signatures were highly dependent on cell type. Cell context is thus important when considering transcriptomic evidence of ligand signaling, which makes it challenging to build generalizable ligand-receptor interaction signatures to improve cell-cell interaction predictions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".