Deep learning explains the biology of branched glycans from single-cell sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glycosylation is ubiquitous and often dysregulated in disease. However, the regulation and functional significance of various types of glycosylation at cellular levels is hard to unravel experimentally. Multi-omics, single-cell measurements such as SUGAR-seq, which quantifies transcriptomes and cell surface glycans, facilitate addressing this issue. Using SUGAR-seq data, we pioneered a deep learning model to predict the glycan phenotypes of cells (mouse T lymphocytes) from transcripts, with the example of predicting β1,6GlcNAc-branching across T cell subtypes (test set F1 score: 0.9351). Model interpretation via SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) identified highly predictive genes, in part known to impact (i) branched glycan levels and (ii) the biology of branched glycans. These genes included physiologically relevant low-abundance genes that were not captured by conventional differential expression analysis. Our work shows that interpretable deep learning models are promising for uncovering novel functions and regulatory mechanisms of glycans from integrated transcriptomic and glycomic datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".