Development positions malignant cellular states but does notexplain their diversification
Poyatos, J. F.
Show abstract
Epithelial cancers are often described as aberrant reactivations of embryonic or tissue-forming programs, but whether malignant cellular-state diversification is actually constrained by developmental trajectories remains unclear. Here, we present a quantitative framework to test this idea in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Using representation learning on large-scale single-cell data, we build a reference space that captures the main axes of normal foregut and pancreatic epithelial variation. Malignant cells can be mapped into this space, showing that developmental biology helps interpret their identity. However, these coordinates account for only part of the variation. A substantial portion lay outside the reference space, and the residual component was structured rather than diffuse. Furthermore, displacements between cancer states showed weak alignment with canonical axes and did not correspond to simple progression along them, even when they retained measurable components within the broader subspace. Thus, developmental programs offer a useful coordinate system for describing where PDAC states sit relative to normal epithelia, but they do not explain the directions along which malignant states differ. Instead, malignant diversification follows additional structured, cancer-adaptive axes outside the dominant geometry of normal development. More generally, these results demonstrate how disease-state variation can be decomposed into shared coordinates of normal identity and distinct directions of pathological reprogramming. Significance StatementTumors are often said to reuse genetic programs from early tissue formation, but similarity to those programs does not mean cancer cells follow the same trajectories. We developed a quantitative framework to separate these ideas in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Variation tied to normal epithelial differentiation provided a useful coordinate system for locating malignant cell states, yet differences between those states showed weak alignment with canonical differentiation directions and included structured, cancer-adaptive programs. Thus, pancreatic cancer retains aspects of normal cell identity while diversifying along additional malignant axes. This distinction clarifies how insights from normal tissue programs should be applied to cancer plasticity and provides a general method for comparing disease states with normal cellular programs.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Widespread transcriptional memory shapes heritable states and functional heterogeneity in cancer and stem cells 95%
- Learning multi-cellular representations of single-cell transcriptomics data enables characterization of patient-level disease states 94%
- Interpretable deep learning of label-free live cell images uncovers functional hallmarks of highly-metastatic melanoma 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Spatially defined multicellular functional units in colorectal cancer revealed from single cell and spatial transcriptomics 96%
- Neural assemblies uncovered by generative modeling explain whole-brain activity statistics and reflect structural connectivity 94%
- 3D Cell Neighbour Dynamics in Growing Pseudostratified Epithelia 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Characterizing genetic intra-tumor heterogeneity across 2,658 human cancer genomes 95%
- Chromatin potential identified by shared single cell profiling of RNA and chromatin 95%
- A Modular Master Regulator Landscape Determines the Impact of Genetic Alterations on the Transcriptional Identity of Cancer Cells 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining ancestry, heritability and plasticity of cellular phenotypes in somatic evolution 95%
- Spatial drivers and pre-cancer populations collaborate with the microenvironment in untreated and chemo-resistant pancreatic cancer 95%
- Impact of Segmentation Errors in Analysis of Spatial Transcriptomics Data. 94%
"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.