A deep learning representation and spatial Bayesian cell-type deconvolution for spatial transcriptomics


Abstract

Background. Spatial transcriptomics provides unprecedented insights into gene expression in the spatial context of tissues; however, some mainstream techniques lack quantitative analysis of uncertainty.
Methods. In this study, we propose a novel computational framework that combines deep Gaussian processes (DGP) with Bayesian uncertainty for spatially aware deconvolution analysis of spatial transcriptomics data. Our method leverages the hierarchical non-linear mapping capabilities of DGP to capture complex spatial dependencies while maintaining probabilistic interpretability through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) inference. Our approach introduces several key innovations: (1) Use a multi-layer hierarchical structure, with each layer being a Gaussian process capable of learning nonlinear mappings. (2) In a neural network, forward propagation uses the output of the previous layer as the input for the next layer. and (3) Using variational inference to approximate the posterior distribution.
Results. We compared our method with existing methods using a pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma dataset containing matched single-cell RNA-seq and spatial transcriptomics data. Our method demonstrated greater accuracy in estimating cell type proportions (especially rare cell types) than other existing methods and revealed biologically meaningful spatial patterns of T cell distribution. The Bayesian nature of the method provides uncertainty quantification for each estimate, enhancing the interpretation of spatial heterogeneity in complex tissues.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].