Robust characterization and interpretation of rare pathogenic cell populations from spatial omics using GARDEN

1. Jin, Y. et al. Advances in spatial transcriptomics and its applications in cancer research. Mol. Cancer 23, 129 (2024).

   Google Scholar 

2. Jung, N. & Kim, T. K. yung Spatial transcriptomics in neuroscience. Exp. Mol. Med. 55, 2105–2115 (2023).

   Google Scholar 

3. Valastyan, S. & Weinberg, R. A. Tumor metastasis: molecular insights and evolving paradigms. Cell 147, 275–292 (2011).

   Google Scholar 

4. Chen, A. et al. Spatiotemporal transcriptomic atlas of mouse organogenesis using DNA nanoball-patterned arrays. Cell 185, 1777–1792 (2022).

   Google Scholar 

5. Wang, I.-H. et al. Spatial transcriptomic reconstruction of the mouse olfactory glomerular map suggests principles of odor processing. Nat. Neurosci. 25, 484–492 (2022).

   Google Scholar 

6. Wang, X. et al. Three-dimensional intact-tissue sequencing of single-cell transcriptional states. Science 361, eaat5691 (2018).

   Google Scholar 

7. Xu, Y. et al. sccad: Cluster decomposition-based anomaly detection for rare cell identification in single-cell expression data. Nat. Commun. 15, 7561 (2024).

   Google Scholar 

8. Wang, X. et al. Marsgt: multi-omics analysis for rare population inference using single-cell graph transformer. Nat. Commun. 15, 338 (2024).

   Google Scholar 

9. Märtens, K. et al. Rarity: discovering rare cell populations from single-cell imaging data. Bioinformatics 39, btad750 (2023).

   Google Scholar 

10. Rabinovich, G. A., Gabrilovich, D. & Sotomayor, E. M. Immunosuppressive strategies that are mediated by tumor cells. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 25, 267–296 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

11. Fu, H. et al. Unsupervised spatially embedded deep representation of spatial transcriptomics. Genome Med. 16, 12 (2021).

12. Dong, K. & Zhang, S. Deciphering spatial domains from spatially resolved transcriptomics with an adaptive graph attention auto-encoder. Nat. Commun. 13, 1739 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

13. Long, Y. et al. Spatially informed clustering, integration, and deconvolution of spatial transcriptomics with graphst. Nat. Commun. 14, 1155 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

14. Varrone, M., Tavernari, D., Santamaria-Martínez, A., Walsh, L. A. & Ciriello, G. Cellcharter reveals spatial cell niches associated with tissue remodeling and cell plasticity. Nat. Genet. 56, 74–84 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

15. Singhal, V. et al. Banksy unifies cell typing and tissue domain segmentation for scalable spatial omics data analysis. Nat. Genet. 56, 431–441 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

16. Jindal, A., Gupta, P., Jayadeva & Sengupta, D. Discovery of rare cells from voluminous single cell expression data. Nat. Commun. 9, 4719 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

17. Fa, B. et al. Gapclust is a light-weight approach distinguishing rare cells from voluminous single cell expression profiles. Nat. Commun. 12, 4197 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

18. Schwartz, G. W. et al. Toomanycells identifies and visualizes relationships of single-cell clades. Nat. Methods 17, 405–413 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

19. Jiang, L., Chen, H., Pinello, L. & Yuan, G. uo-C. heng Giniclust: detecting rare cell types from single-cell gene expression data with gini index. Genome Biol. 17, 1–13 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

20. Liang, S. et al. Single-cell manifold-preserving feature selection for detecting rare cell populations. Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 374–384 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

21. Dries, R. et al. Giotto: a toolbox for integrative analysis and visualization of spatial expression data. Genome Biol. 22, 1–31 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

22. Zhao, E. et al. Spatial transcriptomics at subspot resolution with bayesspace. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 1375–1384 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

23. Xu, H. et al. Spacel: deep learning-based characterization of spatial transcriptome architectures. Nat. Commun. 14, 7603 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

24. Zhang, Q. et al. Leveraging spatial transcriptomics data to recover cell locations in single-cell rna-seq with celery. Nat. Commun. 14, 4050 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

25. Biancalani, T. et al. Deep learning and alignment of spatially resolved single-cell transcriptomes with tangram. Nat. Methods 18, 1352–1362 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

26. Cang, Z. & Nie, Q. Inferring spatial and signaling relationships between cells from single cell transcriptomic data. Nat. Commun. 11, 2084 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

27. Brody, S., Alon, U. & Yahav, E. How attentive are graph attention networks? In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2022), Virtual Event, April 25–29, 2022. OpenReview.net (2022).

28. Wolf, F. A. et al. Paga: graph abstraction reconciles clustering with trajectory inference through a topology preserving map of single cells. Genome Biol. 20, 1–9 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

29. Zhang, Y. et al. Potential role of astrocyte angiotensin converting enzyme 2 in the neural transmission of covid-19 and a neuroinflammatory state induced by smoking and vaping. Fluids Barriers CNS 19, 46 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

30. Tantry, M. S. A. & Santhakumar, K. Insights on the role of α-and β-tubulin isotypes in early brain development. Mol. Neurobiol. 60, 3803–3823 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

31. Yasui, D. H. et al. Mecp2 modulates gene expression pathways in astrocytes. Mol. Autism 4, 1–11 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

32. Hoshiba, Y. et al. Sox11 balances dendritic morphogenesis with neuronal migration in the developing cerebral cortex. J. Neurosci. 36, 5775–5784 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

33. Schneider, C., Krischke, G., Rascher, W., Gassmann, M. & Trollmann, R. Systemic hypoxia differentially affects neurogenesis during early mouse brain maturation. Brain Dev. 34, 261–273 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

34. Cheung, M., Abu-Elmagd, M., Clevers, H. & Scotting, P. J. Roles of sox4 in central nervous system development. Mol. Brain Res. 79, 180–191 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

35. Steele-Perkins, G. et al. The transcription factor gene NFIB is essential for both lung maturation and brain development. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 685–698 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

36. Qiu, X. et al. Spatiotemporal modeling of molecular holograms. Cell 187, 7351–7373.e61 (2024).

37. Maaten, L. V. D. & Hinton, G. Visualizing data using t-SNE. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9, 2579–2605 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

38. Greer, J. M. & Capecchi, M. R. Hoxb8 is required for normal grooming behavior in mice. Neuron 33, 23–34 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

39. Chen, S.-K. et al. Hematopoietic origin of pathological grooming in Hoxb8 mutant mice. Cell 141, 775–785 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

40. Wei, X. et al. Single-cell stereo-seq reveals induced progenitor cells involved in axolotl brain regeneration. Science 377, eabp9444 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

41. Li, H. et al. Santo: a coarse-to-fine alignment and stitching method for spatial omics. Nat. Commun. 15, 6048 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

42. Xia, C.-R., Cao, Z.-J., Tu, X.-M. & Gao, G. Spatial-linked alignment tool (slat) for aligning heterogenous slices. Nat. Commun. 14, 7236 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

43. Zeira, R., Land, M., Strzalkowski, A. & Raphael, B. J. Alignment and integration of spatial transcriptomics data. Nat. Methods 19, 567–575 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

44. Maynard, K. R. et al. Transcriptome-scale spatial gene expression in the human dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 24, 425–436 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

45. Tang, Z. et al. Search and match across spatial omics samples at single-cell resolution. Nat. methods 21, 1818–1829 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

46. Chen, X., Fischer, S., Zhang, A., Gillis, J. & Zador, A. Modular cell type organization of cortical areas revealed by in situ sequencing. BioRxiv, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.06.515380 (2022).

47. Oliveira, M. F. et al. High-definition spatial transcriptomic profiling of immune cell populations in colorectal cancer. Nat. Genet. 57, 1512–1523 (2025).

48. Satija, R., Farrell, J. A., Gennert, D., Schier, A. F. & Regev, A. Spatial reconstruction of single-cell gene expression data. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 495–502 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

49. Rodia, M. T. et al. Lgals4, ceacam6, tspan8, and col1a2: blood markers for colorectal cancer-validation in a cohort of subjects with positive fecal immunochemical test result. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 17, e217–e228 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

50. Astrosini, C. et al. Reg1a expression is a prognostic marker in colorectal cancer and associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Int. J. Cancer 123, 409–413 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

51. Zhou, M. et al. N6-methyladenosine modification of Reg1α facilitates colorectal cancer progression via β-catenin/Myc/LDHA axis mediated glycolytic reprogramming. Cell Death Dis. 14, 557 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

52. Ye, Y. et al. Up-regulation of reg3a in colorectal cancer cells confers proliferation and correlates with colorectal cancer risk. Oncotarget 7, 3921 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

53. Thapa, N., Lee, B.-H. & Kim, I.-S. Tgfbip/βig-h3 protein: a versatile matrix molecule induced by tgf-β. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 39, 2183–2194 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

54. Bae, J.-S. et al. βig-h3 supports keratinocyte adhesion, migration, and proliferation through α3β1 integrin. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 294, 940–948 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

55. Thapa, N., Kang, K.-B. & Kim, I.-S. βig-h3 mediates osteoblast adhesion and inhibits differentiation. Bone 36, 232–242 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

56. Bani-Yaghoub, M. et al. Role of sox2 in the development of the mouse neocortex. Dev. Biol. 295, 52–66 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

57. Bulfone, A. et al. T-brain-1: a homolog of brachyury whose expression defines molecularly distinct domains within the cerebral cortex. Neuron 15, 63–78 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

58. Pei, Z. et al. Homeobox genes gsx1 and gsx2 differentially regulate telencephalic progenitor maturation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 1675–1680 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

59. Zeng, H. et al. Integrative in situ mapping of single-cell transcriptional states and tissue histopathology in a mouse model of alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Neurosci. 26, 430–446 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

60. Hong, S. et al. Complement and microglia mediate early synapse loss in alzheimer mouse models. Science 352, 712–716 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

61. Leng, F. & Edison, P. Neuroinflammation and microglial activation in alzheimer disease: where do we go from here?. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 17, 157–172 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

62. Meda, L., Baron, P. & Scarlato, G. Glial activation in alzheimer’s disease: the role of aβ and its associated proteins. Neurobiol. aging 22, 885–893 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

63. Palla, G. et al. Squidpy: a scalable framework for spatial omics analysis. Nat. methods 19, 171–178 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

64. Carter, S. F. et al. Astrocyte biomarkers in alzheimer’s disease. Trends Mol. Med. 25, 77–95 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

65. Cai, Z., Wan, C.-Q. & Liu, Z. Astrocyte and alzheimer’s disease. J. Neurol. 264, 2068–2074 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

66. Miller, B. F., Bambah-Mukku, D., Dulac, C., Zhuang, X. & Fan, J. Characterizing spatial gene expression heterogeneity in spatially resolved single-cell transcriptomic data with nonuniform cellular densities. Genome Res. 31, 1843–1855 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

67. Application Note – Exploring Alzheimer’s-like pathology at subcellular resolution using Xenium In Situ, Document Number LIT000210, 10x Genomics, (2023).

68. Anderson, N. M. & Simon, M. C. The tumor microenvironment. Curr. Biol. 30, R921–R925 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

69. Schumacher, T. N. & Thommen, D. S. Tertiary lymphoid structures in cancer. Science 375, eabf9419 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

70. Munoz-Erazo, L., Rhodes, J. L., Marion, V. C. & Kemp, R. A. Tertiary lymphoid structures in cancer–considerations for patient prognosis. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 17, 570–575 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

71. Liu, Y. et al. Single-cell and spatial transcriptome analyses reveal tertiary lymphoid structures linked to tumour progression and immunotherapy response in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Nat. Commun. 15, 7713 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

72. Chen, Y.-P. et al. Single-cell transcriptomics reveals regulators underlying immune cell diversity and immune subtypes associated with prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cell Res. 30, 1024–1042 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

73. Hu, J. et al. Deciphering tumor ecosystems at super resolution from spatial transcriptomics with Tesla. Cell Syst. 14, 404–417 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

74. Ding, N. et al. Dynamic single-cell profiling reveals novel immune regulatory mechanism of ITK inhibitor soquelitinib in refractory T cell lymphoma. Blood 142, 1442 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

75. Wu, Y. et al. Neutrophil profiling illuminates anti-tumor antigen-presenting potency. Cell 187, 1422–1439 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

76. Mesin, L., Ersching, J. & Victora, G. D. Germinal center B cell dynamics. Immunity 45, 471–482 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

77. Kaser, A. et al. B lymphocyte-derived IL-16 attracts dendritic cells and TH cells. J. Immunol. 165, 2474–2480 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

78. Vulcano, M. et al. Unique regulation of ccl18 production by maturing dendritic cells. J. Immunol. 170, 3843–3849 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

79. Ying, Z., Bourgeois, D., You, J., Zitnik, M. & Leskovec, J. GNNExplainer: generating explanations for graph neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 32, 9240–9251 (2019).

80. Ji, A. L. et al. Multimodal analysis of composition and spatial architecture in human squamous cell carcinoma. cell 182, 497–514 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

81. Jin, S. et al. Inference and analysis of cell-cell communication using CellChat. Nat. Commun. 12, 1088 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

82. Fang, S. et al. Stereopy: modeling comparative and spatiotemporal cellular heterogeneity via multi-sample spatial transcriptomics. Nat. Commun. 16, 3741 (2025).

83. Mlacki, M., Darido, C., Jane, S. M. & Wilanowski, T. Loss of grainy head-like 1 is associated with disruption of the epidermal barrier and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. PLoS ONE 9, e89247 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

84. Janesick, A. et al. High resolution mapping of the tumor microenvironment using integrated single-cell, spatial and in situ analysis. Nat. Commun. 14, 8353 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

85. Gehan, E. A. A generalized wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored samples. Biometrika 52, 203–224 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

86. Tang, Z. et al. Gepia: a web server for cancer and normal gene expression profiling and interactive analyses. Nucleic acids Res. 45, W98–W102 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

87. Zeng, Z. et al. Omicverse: a framework for bridging and deepening insights across bulk and single-cell sequencing. Nat. Commun. 15, 5983 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

88. Qian, B.-Z. & Pollard, J. W. Macrophage diversity enhances tumor progression and metastasis. Cell 141, 39–51 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

89. DeTomaso, D. & Yosef, N. Hotspot identifies informative gene modules across modalities of single-cell genomics. Cell Syst. 12, 446–456 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

90. Pan, Y. et al. Analysis of differential gene expression profile identifies novel biomarkers for breast cancer. Oncotarget 8, 114613 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

91. Rennhack, J. P. et al. Integrated analyses of murine breast cancer models reveal critical parallels with human disease. Nat. Commun. 10, 3261 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

92. Xu, K. et al. Single-cell rna sequencing reveals cell heterogeneity and transcriptome profile of breast cancer lymph node metastasis. Oncogenesis 10, 66 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

93. Zhang, D. et al. Spatial epigenome–transcriptome co-profiling of mammalian tissues. Nature 616, 113–122 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

94. Granja, J. M. et al. Archr is a scalable software package for integrative single-cell chromatin accessibility analysis. Nat. Genet. 53, 403–411 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

95. Weed, N. et al. Identification of genetic markers for cortical areas using a random forest classification routine and the allen mouse brain atlas. PLoS ONE 14, e0212898 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

96. Wolf, F. A., Angerer, P. & Theis, F. J. Scanpy: large-scale single-cell gene expression data analysis. Genome Biol. 19, 1–5 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

97. Guo, X., Gao, L., Liu, X. & Yin, J. Improved deep embedded clustering with local structure preservation. Ijcai 17, 1753–1759 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

98. Wang, T. et al. Graph attention automatic encoder based on contrastive learning for domain recognition of spatial transcriptomics. Commun. Biol. 7, 1351 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

99. Feng, W. et al. Graph random neural networks for semi-supervised learning on graphs. Adv. neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 22092–22103 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

100. Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T. B. & Raftery, A. E. mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using gaussian finite mixture models. R. J. 8, 289 (2016).

     Google Scholar 

101. Traag, V. A., Waltman, L. & Van Eck, N. J. From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities. Sci. Rep. 9, 5233 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

102. Vincent, D. B. et al. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech.: theory Exp. 2008, P10008 (2008).

     Google Scholar 

103. Yu, Q. et al. Joint optimal transport and embedding for network alignment. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 (WWW 2025), Sydney, NSW, Australia, 28 April–2 May 2025. 2064–2075 (ACM, 2025).

104. Peyré, G. et al. Computational optimal transport: with applications to data science. Found. Trends® Mach. Learn. 11, 355–607 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

105. Hofmann, T. Probabilistic latent semantic indexing. In SIGIR ’99: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Berkeley, CA, USA, August 15–19, 1999. 50–57 (ACM, 1999).

106. Pham, D. et al. Robust mapping of spatiotemporal trajectories and cell–cell interactions in healthy and diseased tissues. Nat. Commun. 14, 7739 (2023).

107. Hu, J. et al. Spagcn: Integrating gene expression, spatial location and histology to identify spatial domains and spatially variable genes by graph convolutional network. Nat. Methods 18, 1342–1351 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

108. Qian, J. et al. Simulating multiple variability in spatially resolved transcriptomics with sccube. Nat. Commun. 15, 5021 (2024).

     Google Scholar 

109. Stassen, S. V., Yip, G. G., Wong, K. K. Y., Ho, J. W. K. & Tsia, K. K. Generalized and scalable trajectory inference in single-cell omics data with via. Nat. Commun. 12, 5528 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

110. Yu, G., Wang, L.-G., Han, Y. & He, Q.-Y. clusterprofiler: an r package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters. OMICS 16, 284–287 (2012).

     Google Scholar 

111. Thompson, C. L. et al. A high-resolution spatiotemporal atlas of gene expression of the developing mouse brain. Neuron 83, 309–323 (2014).

     Google Scholar 

112. Wang, Q. et al. The allen mouse brain common coordinate framework: a 3D reference atlas. Cell 181, 936–953 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

113. Zhang, X. & Li, X. Robust characterization and interpretation of rare pathogenic cell populations from spatial omics using GARDEN. Briskzxm/GARDEN. https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/GARDEN/28219010 (2025).

114. Zhang, X. Robust characterization and interpretation of rare pathogenic cell populations from spatial omics using GARDEN. Briskzxm/GARDEN. https://zenodo.org/records/17936255 (2025).

Download references