MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400937053 · doi:10.1101/2024.07.24.604816

PrePR-CT: Predicting Perturbation Responses in Unseen Cell Types Using Cell-Type-Specific Graphs

2024· preprint· en· W4400937053 on OpenAlexaff
Reem Alsulami, Robert Lehmann, Sumeer Ahmad Khan, Vincenzo Lagani, David Gómez-Cabrero, Narsis A. Kiani, Jesper Tegnér

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerturbation (astronomy)Cell typeType (biology)Computer scienceCellArtificial intelligenceMathematicsBiologyPhysicsGeneticsAstronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predicting the transcriptional response of chemical perturbations is crucial to understanding gene function and developing drug candidates, promising a streamlined drug development process. Single-cell sequencing has provided an ideal data basis for training machine learning models for this task. Recent advances in deep learning have led to significant improvements in predictions of chemical as well as genetic perturbations at the single cell level. Experiments have shown that different cell types exhibit distinct transcriptional patterns and responses to perturbation. This poses a fundamental problem for predicting transcriptional responses of drugs or cell types outside the training data. Accordingly, existing methods lack cell-type-specific modeling or do not explicitly provide an interpretable mechanism for the gene features. In this study, we introduce a novel approach that employs a network representation of various cell types as an inductive bias, improving prediction performance in scenarios with limited data while acknowledging cellular differences. We applied our framework to four small-scale single-cell perturbation datasets and one large-scale screening experiment, demonstrating that this representation can inherently generalize to previously unseen cell types. Furthermore, our method outperforms the state-of-the-art methods in predicting the post-perturbation response in unobserved cell types.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207