Enhanced Spatial Transcriptomics Analysis of Mouse Lung Tissues Reveals Cell-Specific Gene Expression Changes Associated with Pulmonary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial transcriptomics technologies have emerged as powerful tools for understanding cellular identity and function within the natural spatial context of tissues. Traditional transcriptomics techniques, such as bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing, lose this spatial information, which is critical for addressing many biological questions. Here, we present a protocol for high-resolution spatial transcriptomics using fixed frozen mouse lung sections mounted on 10X Genomics Xenium slides. This method integrates multiplexed fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) with high-throughput imaging to reveal the spatial distribution of mRNA molecules in lung tissue sections, allowing detailed analysis of gene expression changes in a mouse model of pulmonary hypertension (PH). We compared two tissue preparation methods, fixed frozen and fresh frozen, for compatibility with the Xenium platform. Our fixed frozen approach, utilizing a free-floating technique to mount thin lung sections onto Xenium slides at room temperature, preserved tissue integrity and maximized the imaging area, resulting in high-fidelity spatial transcriptomics data. Using a predesigned 379-gene mouse panel, we identified 40 major lung cell types. We detected key cellular changes in PH, including an increase in arterial endothelial cells (AECs) and fibroblasts, alongside a reduction in capillary endothelial cells (CAP1 and CAP2). Through differential gene expression analysis, we observed markers of endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast activation in PH lungs. High-resolution spatial mapping further confirmed increased arterialization in the distal microvasculature. These findings underscore the utility of spatial transcriptomics in preserving the native tissue architecture and enhancing our understanding of cellular heterogeneity in disease. Our protocol provides a reliable method for integrating spatial and transcriptomic data using fixed frozen lung tissues, offering significant potential for future studies in complex diseases such as PH.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".