Understanding TCR T cell knockout behavior using interpretable machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic perturbation of T cell receptor (TCR) T cells is a promising method to unlock better TCR T cell performance to create more powerful cancer immunotherapies, but understanding the changes to T cell behavior induced by genetic perturbations remains a challenge. Prior studies have evaluated the effect of different genetic modifications with cytokine production and metabolic activity assays. Live-cell imaging is an inexpensive and robust approach to capture TCR T cell responses to cancer. Most methods to quantify T cell responses in live-cell imaging data use simple approaches to count T cells and cancer cells across time, effectively quantifying how much space in the 2D well each cell type covers, leaving actionable information unexplored. In this study, we characterize changes in TCR T cell's interactions with cancer cells from live-cell imaging data using explainable artificial intelligence (AI). We train convolutional neural networks to distinguish behaviors in TCR T cell with CRISPR knock outs of CUL5, RASA2, and a safe harbor control knockout. We use explainable AI to identify specific interaction types that define different knock-out conditions. We find that T cell and cancer cell coverage is a strong marker of TCR T cell modification when comparing similar experimental time points, but differences in cell aggregation characterize CUL5KO and RASA2KO behavior across all time points. Our pipeline for discovery in live-cell imaging data can be used for characterizing complex behaviors in arbitrary live-cell imaging datasets, and we describe best practices for this goal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".