4.8 Article

Interpretation of T cell states from single-cell transcriptomics data using reference atlases

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-23324-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) Ambizione grant [180010]
  2. SNF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors successfully established reference T cell atlases for cancer and viral infection by integrating multiple studies and developing ProjecTILs algorithm. It accurately predicts cell perturbations effects and identifies highly conserved T cell subtypes, providing a stable basis for describing T cell heterogeneity consistently across different diseases and species.
Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has revealed an unprecedented degree of immune cell diversity. However, consistent definition of cell subtypes and cell states across studies and diseases remains a major challenge. Here we generate reference T cell atlases for cancer and viral infection by multi-study integration, and develop ProjecTILs, an algorithm for reference atlas projection. In contrast to other methods, ProjecTILs allows not only accurate embedding of new scRNA-seq data into a reference without altering its structure, but also characterizing previously unknown cell states that deviate from the reference. ProjecTILs accurately predicts the effects of cell perturbations and identifies gene programs that are altered in different conditions and tissues. A meta-analysis of tumor-infiltrating T cells from several cohorts reveals a strong conservation of T cell subtypes between human and mouse, providing a consistent basis to describe T cell heterogeneity across studies, diseases, and species. One challenge of single cell RNA sequencing analysis is how to consistently identify cell subtypes and states across different datasets. Here the authors propose the use of a reference single-cell atlas as a stable system of coordinates to characterize T cell states across studies, diseases and species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据