TIDEST: post-imputation differential expression testing for spatial transcriptomics data
Roeder, K.; Lei, J.; Testa, L.
Show abstract
Spatial transcriptomics enables the study of tissue organization in situ, but many high-resolution platforms measure only a limited gene panel, leaving much of the transcriptome unobserved. Although deep learning methods can reconstruct missing genes from matched single-cell references, downstream differential expression (DE) analysis remains unreliable because prediction uncertainty and spatially structured sources of variation are typically ignored. These factors can bias effect estimates and inflate false discoveries. We present TIDEST, a framework for DE testing after spatial transcriptomic imputation. TIDEST uses information from measured genes to correct systematic errors in reconstructed expression and adjusts for latent spatial variation, such as tissue architecture or cell-type composition, that can create spurious differences between biological groups. Across extensive simulations, TIDEST maintains substantially better error control than existing approaches while preserving power. Applications to mouse brain, human glioblastoma, and human breast cancer data recover biologically meaningful DE signals that are missed or distorted by conventional analyses. TIDEST provides a principled framework for DE analysis on reconstructed spatial transcriptomes.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Probabilistic embedding, clustering, and alignment for integrating spatial transcriptomics data with PRECAST 97%
- Learning interpretable cellular and gene signature embeddings from single-cell transcriptomic data 96%
- Normalisr: normalization and association testing for single-cell CRISPR screen and co-expression 96%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.