ArticlePloS one2025
Clonal phylogenies inferred from bulk, single cell, and spatial transcriptomic analysis of epithelial cancers.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing in prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Intrapatient tumour heterogeneity and clonal evolution in an autopsy study of metastatic salivary gland cancer.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- Resolving tumor evolution: a phylogenetic approach.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epithelial cancers are typically heterogeneous with primary prostate cancer being a typical example of histological and genomic variation. Prior studies of primary prostate cancer tumour genetics revealed extensive inter and intra-patient genomic tumour heterogeneity. Recent advances in machine learning have enabled the inference of ground-truth genomic single-nucleotide and copy number variant status from transcript data. While these inferred SNV and CNV states can be used to resolve clonal phylogenies, however, it is still unknown how faithfully transcript-based tumour phylogenies reconstruct ground truth DNA-based tumour phylogenies. We sought to study the accuracy of inferred-transcript to recapitulate DNA-based tumour phylogenies. We first performed in-silico comparisons of inferred and directly resolved SNV and CNV status, from single cancer cells, from three different cell lines. We found that inferred SNV phylogenies accurately recapitulate DNA phylogenies (entanglement = 0.097). We observed similar results in iCNV and CNV based phylogenies (entanglement = 0.11). Analysis of published prostate cancer DNA phylogenies and inferred CNV, SNV and transcript based phylogenies demonstrated phylogenetic concordance. Finally, a comparison of pseudo-bulked spatial transcriptomic data to adjacent sections with WGS data also demonstrated recapitulation of ground truth (entanglement = 0.35). These results suggest that transcript-based inferred phylogenies recapitulate conventional genomic phylogenies. Further work will need to be done to increase accuracy, genomic, and spatial resolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.