MerQuaCo: a computational tool for quality control in image-based spatial transcriptomics
Martin, N. X.; Olsen, P.; Quon, J.; Campos, J.; Valera Cuevas, N. J.; Nagra, J.; VanNess, M.; Maltzer, Z.; Gelfand, E.; Oyama, A.; Gary, A.; Wang, Y.; Alaya, A.; Ruiz, A.; Reynoldson, C.; Bielstein, C.; Pom, C. A.; Huang, C.; Slaughterback, C.; Liang, E.; Alexander, J.; Ariza, J.; Malone, J.; Melchor, J.; Colbert, K.; Brouner, K.; Shulga, L.; Reding, M.; Latimer, P.; Sanchez, R.; Barta, S.; Egdorf, T.; Madigan, Z.; Pagan, C.; Close, J.; Long, B.; Kunst, M.; Lein, E.; Zeng, H.; McMillen, D. A.; Waters, J.
Show abstract
Image-based spatial transcriptomics platforms are powerful tools often used to identify cell populations and describe gene expression in intact tissue. Spatial experiments return large, high-dimensional datasets and several open-source software packages are available to facilitate analysis and visualization. The outputs of spatial transcriptomics platforms are typically imperfect. For example, local variations in transcript detection probability are common. Software tools to characterize imperfections and their impact on downstream analyses are lacking so the data quality is assessed manually, a laborious and often a subjective process. Here we describe imperfections in a dataset of 641 fresh-frozen adult mouse brain sections collected using the Vizgen MERSCOPE. Common imperfections included the local loss of tissue from the section, tissue outside the imaging volume due to detachment from the coverslip, transcripts missing due to dropped images, varying detection probability through space, and differences in transcript detection probability between experiments. We describe the incidence of each imperfection and the likely impact on the accuracy of cell type labels. We develop MerQuaCo, open-source code that detects and quantifies imperfections without user input, facilitating the selection of sections for further analysis with existing packages. Together, our results and MerQuaCo facilitate rigorous, objective assessment of the quality of spatial transcriptomics results.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.