Ligand-receptor dynamics in heterophily-aware graph neural networks for enhanced cell type prediction from single-cell RNA-seq data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as powerful tools for analyzing structured data, particularly in domains where relationships and interactions between entities are key. By leveraging the inherent graph structure in datasets, GNNs excel in capturing complex dependencies and patterns that traditional neural networks might miss. This advantage is especially pronounced in the field of computational biology, where the intricate connections between biological entities play a crucial role. In this context, Our work explores the application of GNNs to single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, a domain characterized by complex and heterogeneous relationships. By extracting ligand-receptor (L-R) associations from LIANA and constructing Cell-Cell association networks with varying edge homophily ratios, based on L-R information, we enhance the biological relevance and accuracy of depicting cellular communication pathways. While standard GNN models like Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN), GraphSAGE, Graph Attention Networks (GAT), and MixHop often assume homophily (similar nodes are more likely to be connected), this assumption does not always hold in biological networks. To address this, we explore advanced graph neural network methods, such as <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="m1"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>H</mml:mtext></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math> Graph Convolutional Networks and Gated Bi-Kernel GNNs (GBK-GNN), that are specifically designed to handle heterophilic data. Our study spans across six diverse datasets, enabling a thorough comparison between heterophily-aware GNNs and traditional homophily-assuming models, including Multi-Layer Perceptrons, which disregards graph structure entirely. Our findings highlight the importance of considering data-specific characteristics in GNN applications, demonstrating that heterophily-focused methods can effectively decipher the complex patterns within scRNA-seq data. By integrating multi-omics data, including gene expression profiles and L-R interactions, we pave the way for more accurate and insightful analyses in computational biology, offering a more comprehensive understanding of cellular environments and interactions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".