Multiplex immunofluorescence and single‐cell transcriptomic profiling reveal the spatial cell interaction networks in the non‐small cell lung cancer microenvironment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional immunohistochemistry technologies were limited by the inability to simultaneously detect multiple markers and the lack of identifying spatial relationships among cells, hindering understanding of the biological processes in cancer immunology. METHODS: Tissue slices of primary tumours from 553 IA∼IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases were stained by multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) assay for 10 markers, including CD4, CD38, CD20, FOXP3, CD66b, CD8, CD68, PD-L1, CD133 and CD163, evaluating the amounts of 26 phenotypes of cells in tumour nest and tumour stroma. StarDist depth learning model was utilised to determine the spatial location of cells based on mIF graphs. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) on four primary NSCLC cases was conducted to investigate the putative cell interaction networks. RESULTS: = -0.45). Univariate Cox analyses identified closer proximity between CD8+ T cells predicted longer disease-free survival (DFS). In contrast, closer proximity between CD133+ cancer stem cells (CSCs), longer distances between CD4+ T cells and CD20+ B cells, CD4+ T cells and neutrophils, and CD20+ B cells and neutrophils were correlated with dismal DFS. Data from scRNA-seq further showed that spatially adjacent N1-like neutrophils could boost the proliferation and activation of T and B lymphocytes, whereas spatially neighbouring M2-like macrophages showed negative effects. An immune-related risk score (IRRS) system aggregating robust quantitative and spatial prognosticators showed that high-IRRS patients had significantly worse DFS than low-IRRS ones (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87-3.94, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a framework to analyse the cell interaction networks in tumour microenvironment, revealing the spatial architecture and intricate interplays between immune and tumour cells.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".