Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Spatial biology experiments integrate the molecular and histological landscape of tissues to provide a previously inaccessible view of tissue biology, unlocking the architecture of complex multicellular tissues. Within spatial biology, spatial transcriptomics platforms are among the most advanced, allowing researchers to characterize the expression of thousands of genes across space. These new technologies are transforming our understanding of how cells are organized in space and communicate with each other to determine emergent phenotypes with unprecedented granularity. This is particularly important in cancer research, as it is becoming evident that tumor evolution is shaped not only by the genetic properties of cancer cells but also by how they interact with the tumor microenvironment and their spatial organization. While many platforms can generate spatial transcriptomics profiles, it is still unclear in which context each platform better suits the needs of its users. Here we compare the results obtained using 4 different spatial transcriptomics (VISIUM, VISIUM CytAssist, Xenium and CosMx) and one spatial proteomics (VISIUM CytAssist) platforms across serial sections of 6 FFPE samples from primary human tumors covering some of the most common forms of the disease (lung, breast, colorectal, bladder, lymphoma and ovary). We observed that the VISIUM platform with CytAssist chemistry yielded superior data quality. Xenium consistently produced more reliable results for in situ platforms, with better gene clustering and fewer false positives than CosMx. Interestingly, these platform-based variations didn’t significantly affect cell type identification. Finally, by comparing VISIUM protein profiles with the spatial transcriptomics data from all four platforms on each sample, we identified several genes with mismatched RNA and protein expression patterns, highlighting the importance of multi-omics profiling to reveal the true biology of human tumors.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Cervilla et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68e690f6b6db643587617bce — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.21.593407
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
Sergi Cervilla
Daniela Grases
Elena Pérez
Spanish National Cancer Research Centre
Josep Carreras Leukaemia Research Institute
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...