Back

Human-mouse cross-species comparison identifies common and unique aspects of intestinal mesenchyme development

Johnson, K.; Dong, X.; Xiao, Z.; Islam, H.; Anderman, M. F.; Glass, I.; Spence, J. R.; Walton, K. D.

2025-09-07 developmental biology
10.1101/2025.09.03.674033 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and histological approaches, we examine cross-species cellular identity, diversity and organization of mesenchymal (fibroblast) populations in the developing mouse and human intestines. In both species, we defined 7 fibroblast populations. Using cross-species integration and label transfer approaches we find that each mesenchymal cell subtype in the murine intestine is highly concordant to a cell type/state in the human intestine, and vice-versa, suggesting a strong conservation of mesenchymal cell types/states across species. Despite this conservation, we also observe that individual lineage-defining genes are not always shared and can be found in different mesenchymal populations. High resolution spatial analysis via fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunofluorescence (IF) confirmed these findings and revealed that transcriptionally-defined sub-types of intestinal mesenchymal cells in mice and humans are organized within similar spatial domains.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 12%
14.8%
Similar papers in this journal
2
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 9%
10.8%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Cell Reports
○ 1498 papers in training set
Top 2%
9.5%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Development
● 497 papers in training set
Top 1%
7.1%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 11%
6.6%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Developmental Cell
○ 196 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.8%
8
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.2%
9
Cell
○ 431 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.4%
10
Biology Open
● 156 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
11
JCI Insight
● 277 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
12
Developmental Dynamics
○ 56 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
Nature
○ 645 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
14
The FASEB Journal
○ 194 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 29%
1.7%
16
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.5%
17
npj Regenerative Medicine
○ 24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
18
Stem Cell Reports
○ 130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
19
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.1%
20
PLOS Genetics
● 862 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.0%
21
Disease Models & Mechanisms
139 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
22
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.8%
23
Blood Advances
● 62 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
EMBO Reports
○ 263 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
25
Nature Genetics
○ 286 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%

"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.