Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39752458›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Clonal phylogenies inferred from bulk, single cell, and spatial transcriptomic analysis of epithelial cancers.

Andrew Erickson, Sandy Figiel, Timothy Rajakumar, Srinivasa Rao, Wencheng Yin, Dimitrios Doultsinos, Anette Magnussen, Reema Singh, Ninu Poulose, Richard J Bryant and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Resolving tumor evolution: a phylogenetic approach.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Andrew EricksonNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4850-4086
Sandy FigielNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Timothy RajakumarNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Srinivasa RaoNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Wencheng YinNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Dimitrios DoultsinosNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Anette MagnussenNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Reema SinghNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ninu PouloseNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Richard J BryantNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Olivier CussenotNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9912-0533
Freddie C HamdyNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Dan WoodcockNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ian G MillsNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Alastair D LambNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25812
6 · The paper itself

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

DNA Copy Number VariationsPhylogenyProstatic NeoplasmsSingle-Cell AnalysisCell Line, TumorClone CellsGene Expression ProfilingHumansMalePolymorphism, Single NucleotideTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID39752458
PMCPMC11698422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.