Back

Branch-resolved IFN/STING-linked lesion-state architecture in psoriasis: multi-cohort derivation, held-out bulk replication and single-cell context analysis

Sun, H.-Y.; Chang, T.-L.; Wen, Z.-H.; Sun, H.-W.

2026-07-22 immunology
10.64898/2026.07.19.739418 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Objective and designWe tested whether a frozen branch-resolved IFN/STING-linked lesion-state architecture derived from paired psoriasis transcriptomes would transport to an untouched bulk RNA-sequencing cohort and remain detectable within broad cell compartments. Material or subjectsSeven paired bulk cohorts formed the derivation backbone. GSE121212 provided held-out replication using 27 matched lesional/nonlesional pairs; treatment-facing cohorts and GSE228421 provided pharmacodynamic and cellular-context analyses. TreatmentNo intervention was administered by the authors; public datasets included ustekinumab-, etanercept-, secukinumab- and risankizumab-exposed samples. MethodsFrozen modules and branches were scored after cohort-wide gene standardization. GSE121212 counts underwent trimmed mean of M-values normalization and log2 counts-per-million transformation. Paired effects, upper-quartile STING-high contrasts, lesional Spearman coupling and prespecified rank concordance were evaluated. ResultsGSE121212 lesional-minus-nonlesional effects were 1.288 for STING-core, 1.478 for IFN-responsive activity and 1.188 for proximal-only STING; all lower 95% confidence limits exceeded zero. Coupling-vector concordance was strong (rho = 0.893, P = 0.0068), whereas STING-high effect concordance was moderate (rho = 0.536), yielding partial replication. ConclusionsHeld-out replication was partial: the IFN/STING lesion anchor and proximal/IFN-dominant coupling transported, while broader ordering did not fully transport. Transcriptomic findings do not establish biochemical STING activation, causality or clinical thresholds.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.