Integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics to reveal the glioblastoma heterogeneity

Adrian Perdyan; Urszula Lawrynowicz; Monika Horbacz; Bozena Kaminska; Jakub Mieczkowski

doi:10.12688/f1000research.126243.2

Home Browse Integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Review

Revised

Integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics to reveal the glioblastoma heterogeneity

[version 2; peer review: 3 approved]

Adrian Perdyan¹, Urszula Lawrynowicz^1,2, Monika Horbacz¹, Bozena Kaminska³, Jakub Mieczkowski¹

Adrian Perdyan¹, Urszula Lawrynowicz^1,2, [...] Monika Horbacz¹, Bozena Kaminska³, Jakub Mieczkowski¹

PUBLISHED 09 Aug 2023

Author details Author details

¹ 3P-Medicine Laboratory, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
² Department of Medical Immunology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
³ Nencki Institute, Warszawa, Poland

Adrian Perdyan
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Urszula Lawrynowicz
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Monika Horbacz
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Bozena Kaminska
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Jakub Mieczkowski
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Cell & Molecular Biology gateway.

This article is included in the Glioblastoma Heterogeneity collection.

This article is included in the Single-Cell RNA-Sequencing collection.

Abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM), a deadly brain tumor, is still one of a few lasting challenges of contemporary oncology. Current therapies fail to significantly improve patient survival due to GBM tremendous genetic, transcriptomic, immunological, and sex-dependent heterogeneity. Over the years, clinical differences between males and females were characterized. For instance, higher incidence of GBM in males or distinct responses to cancer chemotherapy and immunotherapy between males and females have been noted. Despite the introduction of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics, these differences were not further investigated as studies were focused only on revealing the general picture of GBM heterogeneity. Hence, in this mini-review, we summarized the current state of knowledge on GBM heterogeneity revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics with regard to genetics, immunology, and sex-dependent differences. Additionally, we highlighted future research directions which would fill the gap of knowledge on the impact of patient’s sex on the disease outcome.

Keywords

single-cell RNA sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, glioblastoma, heterogeneity, immunology, sex

Corresponding author: Jakub Mieczkowski

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This research was supported in part by National Science Centre, Poland [Grant Number: 2021/41/N/NZ4/02317 and 2017/27/B/NZ2/02827] and the Foundation for Polish Science under the International Research Agendas Program financed from the Smart Growth Operational Program 2014–2020 (Grant Agreement No. MAB/2018/6).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Perdyan A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Perdyan A, Lawrynowicz U, Horbacz M et al. Integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics to reveal the glioblastoma heterogeneity [version 2; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2023, 11:1180 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126243.2) First published: 17 Oct 2022, 11:1180 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126243.1) Latest published: 09 Aug 2023, 11:1180 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126243.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

We have corrected Figure 1, and the legend of Figure 3 according to the reviewers' comments. Table 1 was also removed.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Georges Nemer
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Dieter Henrik Heiland
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Theo Mantamadiotis

Introduction

Glioblastoma (GBM) is one of the deadliest human tumors, with a 14-month median survival length and five-year overall survival (OS) of approximately 6.8% (https://seer.cancer.gov/). Despite intensive research and the introduction of novel therapeutic regimens, the survival rate has not been improved in the last decades.¹ The disappointing results are mainly due to ineffective surgical resection and rapid local progression.² Moreover, there are no useful biomarkers to detect the emergence of GBM, and the early course of the disease is often asymptomatic.³ Nowadays, GBM is treated with surgery, temozolomide-based (TMZ) chemotherapy, and radiotherapy.² The failure of conventional and targeted therapies is most likely due to intratumoral heterogeneity, intrinsic mechanisms of cell death resistance (due to a high frequency of TP53 and PTEN mutations) and redundant prosurvival signaling pathways.⁴ Additionally, in accordance with recent reports, patient sex may have a major impact on GBM therapeutic outcomes and prognosis. The response rate to conventional therapies is higher in females, whereas immunotherapy works better in males due to higher molecular and cellular heterogeneity of glioma cells.⁵ Moreover, a mutation in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 encoding gene, IDH1, contributes to better chemotherapy outcomes and prolonged OS in males only.⁶^–⁸ On the other hand, hypermethylation of the promoter of the MGMT gene coding for O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase enhances the effect of TMZ chemotherapy and prolongs OS in females.⁸^,⁹ Also, there are several negative prognostic biomarkers which are listed in the Figure 1.⁸^,¹⁰^–¹³

Figure 1. Major sex-dependent clinicopathological and gene expression differences affecting therapeutic outcomes, prognosis, genetics, and immunology of glioblastoma patients.

Legend: Btg2 – B cell translocation gene 2; CDK – cyclin-dependent kinase; FZD7 – frizzled class receptor; Hmg2 – high mobility group box 2; IDH1 – isocitrate dehydrogenase 1; IL – interleukin; MGMT – O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase; MHC – major histocompatibility complex; p63 – transformation-related protein 63; RB1 – retinoblastoma protein 1; Shh – sonic hedgehog human; TNF-α – tumor necrosis factor alpha.

Over ten years ago, the first GBM transcriptional subtypes were identified with a partial enrichment of PDGFRA or EGFR alterations.¹⁴^,¹⁵ However, with the recent introduction of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and spatial transcriptomics (ST), new cellular states were revealed. Interestingly, distinct states may co-exist within the tumor with variate frequency and are associated with genetic alterations.⁴^,¹⁶ Moreover, GBM heterogeneity manifests in unique developmental states of GBM cells in the tumor. GBM mimics mechanisms of neural development, thus it contains GBM stem cells (GSCs) which are thought to play a major role in possessing tumor-propagating potential and exhibiting preferential resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy.¹⁷^,¹⁸ Finally, GBM has a heterogeneous and highly immunosuppressive TME composed of normal brain residents such as neurons, astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and microglia, immune system infiltrating cells including mostly monocytes/macrophages, as well as endothelial and mesenchymal cells.¹⁹^,²⁰ Glioma-associated microglia and macrophages (GAM) are the most abundant population of immune cells, constituting up to 30% of the tumor mass.²¹^–²³ Despite the high content of glioma-associated microglia and macrophages (GAM), GBM is considered immunologically “cold” due to relatively poor infiltration of activated T cells and anergic state of those present in TME.²⁴ Moreover, the broad range of cell-to-cell interactions between cancer cells and components of the TME affects the biological status of the tumor with an increase in its evasion capacity and resistance to treatment.²⁵

In summary, a better understanding of multilayer GBM heterogeneity, including genetics, epigenetics, developmental stages, TME, and immunology, is required to establish effective therapies.¹⁶ Thus, the purpose of this mini-review was to discuss recent advances in exposing the GBM heterogeneity and highlight future research directions.

Integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics

Although scRNA-seq should expose a detailed functional characterization of transcriptomics of a single cell and allows integration of in vivo states with in vitro models, in principle, it provides an indirect inference of cellular interactions.²⁶ However, with the recent introduction of spatial transcriptomics (ST), it is believed that spatial and functional organization are strictly related, especially in the context of a neuronal tissue.²⁷ ST is a revolutionary method that enables the characterization of cellular interactions and spatial organization of examined tissues.²⁸ Given the fact that ST is not yet at single-cell resolution, methods for the integration of scRNA-seq and ST are vital to understand the heterogeneity of GBM (Figure 2). With the rapid development of complex algorithms and machine learning technologies, a variety of tools to integrate scRNA-seq and ST were recently developed, which enabled a precise characterization of GBM and its TME.²⁹^–³⁶

Figure 2. Integration (deconvolution) strategy of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics data (based on the 10x Genomics protocol).

Single-cell RNA sequencing provides high-throughput and high-resolution profiling of gene expression. However, it lacks spatial information due to tissue dissociation. Conversely, ST offers a spatial context without single-cell resolution. Currently, the spot diameter of ST and Visium platforms is 100 μm and 55 μm, respectively, capturing from one to 30 cells. Thus, to gain a spatial single-cell resolution, it is necessary to integrate both methods.

The first layer of glioblastoma heterogeneity: bulk-RNA sequencing

Over the years, with the constant introduction of more advanced sequencing methods and the launching of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) in 2008, a few layers of transcriptional GBM heterogeneity were discovered (Figure 3) providing a classification of GBM subtypes.¹⁴^,¹⁶^,²⁶ In 2010, Verhaak et al., using bulk-RNA sequencing data of 200 GBM patients from TCGA, identified four distinct transcriptional subtypes of GBM: 1) classical, 2) mesenchymal, 3) proneural, and 4) neural. The results were further validated in a combined cohort of 260 GBM patients from previous studies and confirmed the association of each subtype with certain genetic events.³⁷^–⁴⁰ The classical subtype was highly associated with chromosome 7 amplification paired with chromosome 10 loss, EGFR gene alterations, and disruption of RB, Notch, and Sonic hedgehog signaling. The mesenchymal subtype was characterized by alterations in NF1 and PTEN genes affecting the AKT pathway and expression of mesenchymal markers and tumor necrosis factor superfamily and NF-κB proteins. The proneural subtype was associated with various gene alterations, including PDGFRA, IDH1, TP53, PIK3CA/PIK3R1, and higher expression of OLIG2, SOX, DCX, DLL3, ASCL1, and TCF4. Finally, the neural subtype was associated with the expression of neuron markers NEFL, GABRA1, SYT1, and SLC12A5. However, it was later confirmed that it is not a tumor-specific subtype of GBM with a lack of gene abnormalities but resected fragments with a high contribution of normal tissues.¹⁵ Next, identified subtypes were assigned to neural cell types using transcriptomic data gene sets.⁴¹ The classical, mesenchymal, and proneural subtypes were associated with murine astrocytic, astroglia, and oligodendrocytic signatures, respectively. Interestingly, the frequency of each subtype can vary within the same tumor as multiple subtypes can co-exist or change over time and as a response to therapy.⁴^,⁴² Interestingly, the prevalence of mesenchymal, neural, and proneural subtypes is higher in males than females, while the classical subtype occurs with the same frequency.¹⁰^,⁴³

Figure 3. Graphical presentation of layers of GBM.

Over the years, three GBM classifications were established using three different methodological approaches. This figure shows and points biological lineage of each GBM subtypes as well as differences in the nomenclature which should be unified in the future studies. Legend: AC-like – astrocyte-like; CDK4 – cyclin-dependent kinase 4; EGFR – epidermal growth factor receptor gene; MES-like – mesenchymal-like; NF-1 – neurofibromatosis type 1 gene; NPC-like – neural progenitor-like; OPC-like – oligodendrocyte-progenitor-like; PDFGRA – platelet-derived growth factor receptor A gene; scRNA-seq – single-cell RNA sequencing; ST – spatial transcriptomics; TCGA – The Cancer Genome Atlas.

The second layer of heterogeneity: single-cell RNA sequencing

In 2019, Neftel et al. showed the relationships between genetic subtypes and cellular states by deconvolution of scRNA-seq and TCGA bulk data on GBMs with lineage tracing in GBM murine models.¹⁶ The researchers depicted four cellular states: 1) neural progenitor-like (NPC-like), 2) oligodendrocyte-progenitor-like (OPC-like), 3) astrocyte-like (AC-like), and 4) mesenchymal-like (MES-like) corresponding to previously established TCGA signatures (Figure 3).¹⁴ As previously mentioned, these states may co-exist within the same tumor with different frequencies influenced by genetic alterations in CDK4, PDGFRA, EGFR, and NF1, which favor a particular state, respectively. Based on distinct gene expression patterns signatures can be divided into mesenchymal (MES1-like [hypoxia-independent], MES2-like [hypoxia-dependent]) and neuro-developmental (NPC1-like, NPC2-like, OPC-like, AC-like) states.⁴⁴^,⁴⁵ In general, GBM cells correspond primarily to one of the four states, however, each of the tumors contains at least two cellular states, with most tumors containing all four states. The most frequent hybrid states are AC-like/MES-like, NPC-like/OPC-like, and AC-like/OPC-like.

On the other side, scRNA-seq provided novel insights into GBM immunology (Figure 4), especially on the localization of GAMs within the tumor. Microglia tend to reside in the tumor periphery with the adjacent brain parenchyma, while tissue-invading monocyte-derived macrophages (MDM) are most abundant within the tumor core.⁴⁶^–⁴⁸ Moreover, the expression of immune checkpoint receptor ligands differs in myeloid cells between tumor core and peritumoral tissue.⁴⁶ Comparison of microglial cells from human IDH wild-type GBM and age-matched controls revealed substantially downregulated expression of microglia core genes and upregulated expression of inflammatory- (IFI27, IFITM3), metabolic- (LPL, APOE, TREM2), and hypoxia-associated (HIF1A, VEGFA) genes.⁴⁹ In terms of sex-dependent differences, Ochocka et al. showed that microglia MHC class II-associated genes were significantly upregulated and more reactive in males than in females.⁵⁰ Furthermore, Pombo et al. investigated the evolution of functional GAM profiles across disease stages by sequencing samples from newly diagnosed and recurrent GBMs. Microglia-derived GAMs were predominant in newly diagnosed tumors, but were surpassed by more heterogeneous MDMs in the recurrent ones, especially in the hypoxic tumor environment.⁵¹ Regarding T cells, Mathewson et al. showed that the inhibitory natural killer (NK) cells receptor CD161 is expressed in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but absent in T regulatory cells (Tregs) or patient-matched peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Moreover, CLEC2D (CD161 ligand) was primarily expressed by malignant and myeloid cells, revealing similarities with the PD-1/PDL-1 (programmed death-1/programmed death-1 ligand) system.

Figure 4. The schematic representation of GBM heterogeneity at the cellular level and selected mechanisms of immunosuppression within TME.

NK cells, natural killer cells, Tregs, T regulatory cells, APC, antigen presenting cells. A) Expression of CD161 receptor by NK cells and its ligand CLEC2D by malignant and myeloid cells. B) T-cell exhaustion mediated by TME cells releasing interleukin-10. C) Expression of immune checkpoints on tumor and peritumoral myeloid cells.

The third layer of heterogeneity: spatial transcriptomics

Local cellular interactions between tumor and cells located in TME play a major role in the adaptation of GBM and facilitate growth, infiltration, and therapy resistance, contributing to unique spatial signatures in GBM.⁵²^–⁵⁴ In 2022, Ravi et al. published an atlas of spatially resolved transcriptomics of 28 specimens (20 patients) and complemented it with spatially resolved metabolomics and proteomics.²⁶ The researchers described five spatially distinct transcriptional programs of GBM: 1) radial glia, 2) reactive-immune, 3) neural development, 4) spatial OPC, and 5) reactive-hypoxia (Figure 3). The first two were associated with high expression of astrocyte -related genes (GFAP, AQP4, VIM, CD44). Specifically, radial glia program had an increased expression of radial-glia-associated genes (HOPX, PTPRZ1) and reactive-immune program had a functional enrichment of inflammation-associated genes (HLA-DRA, C3, CCL4, CCL3) and interferon-γsignaling. The next two programs were associated with neuronal lineages (neurons or oligodendrocytes) and were named accordingly. The last program was associated with hypoxia-response (VEGFR, HMOX1, GAPDH) and glycolytic (LDHA, PGK1) genes. In order to integrate novel programs with already established bulk and single-cell classifications, spatial-weighted regression and bilateral integration of the top-scoring gene signatures were carried out, confirming an overlap between radial glia, spatial OPC, neuronal, reactive-hypoxia, and AC-, OPC-, NPC-, and MES2-like (hypoxia-dependent) states, respectively.

Reactive-immune program

The hybrid meta-modules described by Neftel et al. were associated with reactive-immune program suggesting a close functional relationship between AC- and MES-like states.¹⁶ In further analysis, an imaging mass cytometry-based single-cell profiling showed significant enrichment of myeloid and lymphoid cells across hybrid regions. A substantial enrichment of tumor-associated myeloid cells and T cells was found among the reactive immune program. Moreover, the mean PD-1 protein level on T cells was increased, suggesting locally enhanced immunosuppression. These findings were supported by the enrichment of CD163+ myeloid cells, which support phagocytosis and immunosuppression. Furthermore, a previous study by Ravi et al. in 2022 focused on T-cell dysfunction and indicated that exhausted T cells are preferentially located within regions with mesenchymal transcriptional programs. The study revealed that the spatial and functional interaction between the myeloid and lymphoid compartment leads to an interleukin-10 mediated T cell exhaustion.⁵⁵ This was further confirmed that the enrichment of memory and exhausted T cells occur in the reactive-immune and reactive-hypoxia areas.²⁶

Reactive hypoxia program

The reactive hypoxia program is associated with histologically confirmed areas of necrosis and a high prevalence of copy-number alterations (CNAs), including focal amplification of oncogenes or losses of tumor suppressors. Spatially resolved metabolomics of reactive-hypoxia regions revealed a significant enrichment of the pentose phosphate pathway, phosphoadenylate metabolism, glycolysis, and amino sugar metabolism.²⁶ Ravi et al. showed that hypoxia and oxidative stress highly contribute to genomic instabilities, including various chromosomal alterations, that are driving forces in GBM resistance to therapies. Moreover, the reactive-hypoxia program is prevalent among non-cycling cells resulting in a S-phase arrest contributing to the genomic instability.⁵⁶ Finally, based on migratory gene-expression signatures, the effect of oxidative stress on cellular migration was explored, revealing the opposing drivers of genomic diversity, resulting in clonal evolution in GBM.

Conclusions

In this mini-review, we showed a comprehensive overview of the GBM heterogeneity which was revealed by scRNA-seq and ST, and the urgent need to integrate both methods in future research. We discussed distinct layers of heterogeneity with regard to GBM genetics, transcriptomics, immunology, and patients’ sex. Worryingly, despite a growing number of clinical reports about the impact of patients’ sex on GBM prevalence, therapeutic outcomes, and prognosis, there are a few studies considering patients’ sex while using scRNA-seq or ST. Hence, in the future, it is crucial to distinguish patients’ sex in order to characterize potential differences which could have a major impact on the development of therapeutic agents and overcoming GBM treatment resistance.

Data availability

There are no underlying data associated with this article.

References

1. Delgado-López PD, Corrales-García EM: Survival in glioblastoma: a review on the impact of treatment modalities. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2016; 18(11): 1062–1071. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Lara-Velazquez M, Al-Kharboosh R, Jeanneret S, et al.: Advances in Brain Tumor Surgery for Glioblastoma in Adults. Brain Sci. 2017; 7(12). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Szopa W, Burley TA, Kramer-Marek G, et al.: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Biomarkers in Glioblastoma: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017; 2017: 8013513–8013575. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Patel AP, Tirosh I, Trombetta JJ, et al.: Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science. 2014; 344(6190): 1396–1401. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Yang W, Warrington NM, Taylor SJ, et al.: Sex differences in GBM revealed by analysis of patient imaging, transcriptome, and survival data. Sci. Transl. Med. 2019; 11(473): eaao5223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Sanson M, Marie Y, Paris S, et al.: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 codon 132 mutation is an important prognostic biomarker in gliomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009; 27(25): 4150–4154. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Han S, Liu Y, Cai SJ, et al.: IDH mutation in glioma: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets. Br. J. Cancer. 2020; 122(11): 1580–1589. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Schiffgens S, Wilkens L, Brandes AA, et al.: Sex-specific clinicopathological significance of novel (Frizzled-7) and established (MGMT, IDH1) biomarkers in glioblastoma. Oncotarget. 2016; 7(34): 55169–55180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Tierling S, Jurgens-Wemheuer WM, Leismann A, et al.: Bisulfite profiling of the MGMT promoter and comparison with routine testing in glioblastoma diagnostics. Clin. Epigenetics. 2022; 14(1): 1–12. Publisher Full Text
10. Sun T, Warrington NM, Luo J, et al.: Sexually dimorphic RB inactivation underlies mesenchymal glioblastoma prevalence in males. J. Clin. Invest. 2014; 124(9): 4123–4133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Zhang M, Zhang L, Hei R, et al.: CDK inhibitors in cancer therapy, an overview of recent development. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2022; 11(5): 1913–1935.
12. Huang S, Song Z, Zhang T, et al.: Identification of Immune Cell Infiltration and Immune-Related Genes in the Tumor Microenvironment of Glioblastomas. Front. Immunol. 2020; 11: 585034. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Luo W, Lin GN, Song W, et al.: Single-cell spatial transcriptomic analysis reveals common and divergent features of developing postnatal granule cerebellar cells and medulloblastoma. BMC Biol. 2021; 19(1): 135. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Verhaak RGW, Hoadley KA, Purdom E, et al.: Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010; 17(1): 98–110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Wang Q, Hu B, Kim H, et al.: Tumor Evolution of Glioma-Intrinsic Gene Expression Subtypes Associates with Immunological Changes in the Microenvironment. Cancer Cell. 2017; 32(1): 42–56.e6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Neftel C, Laffy J, Filbin MG, et al.: An Integrative Model of Cellular States, Plasticity, and Genetics for Glioblastoma. Cell. 2019; 178(4): 835–849.e21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Bao S, Wu Q, McLendon RE, et al.: Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the DNA damage response. Nature. 2006; 444(7120): 756–760. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Chen J, Li Y, Yu TS, et al.: A restricted cell population propagates glioblastoma growth after chemotherapy. Nature. 2012; 488(7412): 522–526. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Comba A, Faisal SM, Varela ML, et al.: Uncovering Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity of High-Grade Gliomas: From Disease Biology to Therapeutic Implications. Front. Oncol. 2021; 11(11): 703764. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Anghileri E, Patane M, Ianni ND, et al.: Deciphering the labyrinthine system of the immune microenvironment in recurrent glioblastoma: Recent original advances and lessons from clinical immunotherapeutic approaches. Cancers. 2021; 13(24): L6156. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Glass R, Synowitz M: CNS macrophages and peripheral myeloid cells in brain tumours. Acta Neuropathol. 2014; 128(3): 347–362. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Walentynowicz KA, Ochocka N, Pasierbinska M, et al.: In search for reliable markers of glioma-induced polarization of microglia. Front. Immunol. 2018; 9: 1329. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Bianconi A, Aruta G, Rizzo F, et al.: Systematic Review on Tumor Microenvironment in Glial Neoplasm: From Understanding Pathogenesis to Future Therapeutic Perspectives. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022; 23(8): 4166. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Klemm F, Maas RR, Bowman RL, et al.: Interrogation of the Microenvironmental Landscape in Brain Tumors Reveals Disease-Specific Alterations of Immune Cells. Cell. 2020; 181(7): 1643–1660.e17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Crivii CB, Bosca AB, Melincovici CS, et al.: Glioblastoma Microenvironment and Cellular Interactions. Cancers. 2022; 14(4): 1092. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Ravi VM, Will P, Kueckelhaus J, et al.: Spatially resolved multi-omics deciphers bidirectional tumor-host interdependence in glioblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2022; 40(6): 639–655.e13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Maynard KR, Collado-Torres L, Wever LM, et al.: Transcriptome-scale spatial gene expression in the human dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 2021; 24(3): 425–436. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Ståhl PL, Salmen F, Vickovic S, et al.: Visualization and analysis of gene expression in tissue sections by spatial transcriptomics. Science. 2016; 353(6294): 78–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Kleshchevnikov V, Shmatko A, Dann E, et al.: Cell2location maps fine-grained cell types in spatial transcriptomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40(5): 661–671. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Andersson A, Bergenstrahle J, Asp M, et al.: Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics enables probabilistic inference of cell type topography. Commun Biol. 2020; 3(1): 565. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Elosua-Bayes M, Nieto P, Mereu E, et al.: SPOTlight: Seeded NMF regression to deconvolute spatial transcriptomics spots with single-cell transcriptomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021; 49(9): e50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Zhao E, Stone MR, Ren X, et al.: Spatial transcriptomics at subspot resolution with BayesSpace. Nat. Biotechnol. 2021; 39(11): 1375–1384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Cable DM, Murray E, Zou LS, et al.: Robust decomposition of cell type mixtures in spatial transcriptomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40(4): 517–526. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Stuart T, Butler A, Hoffman P, et al.: Comprehensive Integration of Single-Cell Data. Cell. 2019; 177(7): 1888–1902.e21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Biancalani T, Scalia G, Buffoni L, et al.: Deep learning and alignment of spatially resolved single-cell transcriptomes with Tangram. Nat. Methods. 2021; 18(11): 1352–1362. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Ma Y, Zhou X: Spatially informed cell-type deconvolution for spatial transcriptomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40: 1349–1359. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Sun L, Hui AM, Su Q, et al.: Neuronal and glioma-derived stem cell factor induces angiogenesis within the brain. Cancer Cell. 2006; 9(4): 287–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Phillips HS, Kharbanda S, Chen R, et al.: Molecular subclasses of high-grade glioma predict prognosis, delineate a pattern of disease progression, and resemble stages in neurogenesis. Cancer Cell. 2006; 9(3): 157–173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
39. Murat A, Migliavacca E, Gorlia T, et al.: Stem cell-related ‘self-renewal’ signature and high epidermal growth factor receptor expression associated with resistance to concomitant chemoradiotherapy in glioblastoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008; 26(18): 3015–3024. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
40. Beroukhim R, Getz G, Nghiemphu L, et al.: Assessing the significance of chromosomal aberrations in cancer: methodology and application to glioma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007; 104(50): 20007–20012. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
41. Cahoy JD, Emery B, Kaushai A, et al.: A transcriptome database for astrocytes, neurons, and oligodendrocytes: a new resource for understanding brain development and function. J. Neurosci. 2008; 28(1): 264–278. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Sottoriva A, Spiteri I, Piccirillo SGM, et al.: Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013; 110(10): 4009–4014. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Sun T, Plutynski A, Ward S, et al.: An integrative view on sex differences in brain tumors. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2015; 72(17): 3323–3342. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
44. Tirosh I, Venteicher AS, Hebert C, et al.: Single-cell RNA-seq supports a developmental hierarchy in human oligodendroglioma. Nature. 2016; 539(7628): 309–313. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Venteicher AS, Tirosh I, Hebert C, et al.: Decoupling genetics, lineages, and microenvironment in IDH-mutant gliomas by single-cell RNA-seq. Science. 355(6332): eaai8478. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Darmanis S, Sloan SA, Croote D, et al.: Single-Cell RNA-Seq Analysis of Infiltrating Neoplastic Cells at the Migrating Front of Human Glioblastoma. Cell Rep. 2017; 21(5): 1399–1410. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
47. Friebel E, Kapolou K, Unger S, et al.: Single-Cell Mapping of Human Brain Cancer Reveals Tumor-Specific Instruction of Tissue-Invading Leukocytes. Cell. 2020; 181(7): 1626–1642.e20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. Müller S, Kohanbash G, Liu SJ, et al.: Single-cell profiling of human gliomas reveals macrophage ontogeny as a basis for regional differences in macrophage activation in the tumor microenvironment. Genome Biol. 2017; 18(1): 234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
49. Sankowski R, Bottcher C, Masuda T, et al.: Mapping microglia states in the human brain through the integration of high-dimensional techniques. Nat. Neurosci. 2019; 22(12): 2098–2110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
50. Mathewson ND, Ashenberg O, Tirosh I, et al.: Inhibitory CD161 receptor identified in glioma-infiltrating T cells by single-cell analysis. Cell. 2021; 184(5): 1281–1298.e26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
51. Pombo Antunes AR, Scheyltjens I, Lodi F, et al.: Single-cell profiling of myeloid cells in glioblastoma across species and disease stage reveals macrophage competition and specialization. Nat. Neurosci. 2021; 24(4): 595–610. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
52. Bhandari A, Koppen J, Agzarian M: Convolutional neural networks for brain tumour segmentation. Insights Imaging. 2020; 11(1): 77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
53. Heiland DH, Gaebelein A, Borries M, et al.: Microenvironment-Derived Regulation of HIF Signaling Drives Transcriptional Heterogeneity in Glioblastoma Multiforme. Mol. Cancer Res. 2018; 16(4): 655–668. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
54. Grimes DR, Jansen M, Macauley RJ, et al.: Evidence for hypoxia increasing the tempo of evolution in glioblastoma. Br. J. Cancer. 2020; 123(10): 1562–1569. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
55. Ravi VM, Neidert N, Will P, et al.: T-cell dysfunction in the glioblastoma microenvironment is mediated by myeloid cells releasing interleukin-10. Nat. Commun. 2022; 13(1): 925. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
56. Zhu J, Tsai HJ, Gordon MR, et al.: Cellular Stress Associated with Aneuploidy. Dev. Cell. 2018; 44(4): 420–431. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2022

Author details Author details

¹ 3P-Medicine Laboratory, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
² Department of Medical Immunology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
³ Nencki Institute, Warszawa, Poland

Adrian Perdyan
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Urszula Lawrynowicz
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Monika Horbacz
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Bozena Kaminska
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Jakub Mieczkowski
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This research was supported in part by National Science Centre, Poland [Grant Number: 2021/41/N/NZ4/02317 and 2017/27/B/NZ2/02827] and the Foundation for Polish Science under the International Research Agendas Program financed from the Smart Growth Operational Program 2014–2020 (Grant Agreement No. MAB/2018/6).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 09 Aug 2023, 11:1180

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126243.2

version 1

Published: 17 Oct 2022, 11:1180

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126243.1

© 2023 Perdyan A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Perdyan A, Lawrynowicz U, Horbacz M et al. Integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics to reveal the glioblastoma heterogeneity [version 2; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2023, 11:1180 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126243.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 09 Aug 2023

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 10 Aug 2023

Theo Mantamadiotis, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147358.r194972

The authors have done an excellent job writing & revising this review, ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 01 Mar 2023

Georges Nemer, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Beirut Governorate, Lebanon

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.138634.r163667

The review by Perdyan A et al. recapitulates the historical classification of different types of glioblastomas. Overall, the mini-review captures all 4 pillars of heterogeneity: genetics, transcriptomics, immunogenomics, and sex.

In the form, there are a couple

In the form, there are a couple of typos and grammar mistakes as well as redundant "words" that should be corrected like "on the other side" on pages 3 and 6 and the repetition of "on the other hand" in different contexts.
The authors should also correct the label "in this study" on page 4, as this is a mini-review.
For the content, all is well-covered but it would be better if sex is integrated into the other 3 pillars of heterogeneity.

The mini-review can be Approved after these minor corrections.

Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?

Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the review written in accessible language?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Transcriptomics, exome sequencing

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 09 Aug 2023

Jakub Mieczkowski

09 Aug 2023

Author Response

In the form, there are a couple of typos and grammar mistakes as well as redundant "words" that should be corrected like "on the other side" on pages 3 and ... Continue reading In the form, there are a couple of typos and grammar mistakes as well as redundant "words" that should be corrected like "on the other side" on pages 3 and 6 and the repetition of "on the other hand" in different contexts.

The authors should also correct the label "in this study" on page 4, as this is a mini-review.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.

For the content, all is well-covered but it would be better if sex is integrated into the other 3 pillars of heterogeneity.

We integrated sex into one of the three pillars of heterogeneity. Unfortunately, there are only a few studies investigating sex-dependent differences. Studies on which the heterogeneity classifications were made did not take into account this matter. Hence, the purpose of this mini-review was to point out and address this gap in the field.
In the form, there are a couple of typos and grammar mistakes as well as redundant "words" that should be corrected like "on the other side" on pages 3 and 6 and the repetition of "on the other hand" in different contexts.

The authors should also correct the label "in this study" on page 4, as this is a mini-review.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.

For the content, all is well-covered but it would be better if sex is integrated into the other 3 pillars of heterogeneity.

We integrated sex into one of the three pillars of heterogeneity. Unfortunately, there are only a few studies investigating sex-dependent differences. Studies on which the heterogeneity classifications were made did not take into account this matter. Hence, the purpose of this mini-review was to point out and address this gap in the field.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 09 Aug 2023

Jakub Mieczkowski

09 Aug 2023

Author Response

In the form, there are a couple of typos and grammar mistakes as well as redundant "words" that should be corrected like "on the other side" on pages 3 and ... Continue reading In the form, there are a couple of typos and grammar mistakes as well as redundant "words" that should be corrected like "on the other side" on pages 3 and 6 and the repetition of "on the other hand" in different contexts.

The authors should also correct the label "in this study" on page 4, as this is a mini-review.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.

For the content, all is well-covered but it would be better if sex is integrated into the other 3 pillars of heterogeneity.

We integrated sex into one of the three pillars of heterogeneity. Unfortunately, there are only a few studies investigating sex-dependent differences. Studies on which the heterogeneity classifications were made did not take into account this matter. Hence, the purpose of this mini-review was to point out and address this gap in the field.
In the form, there are a couple of typos and grammar mistakes as well as redundant "words" that should be corrected like "on the other side" on pages 3 and 6 and the repetition of "on the other hand" in different contexts.

The authors should also correct the label "in this study" on page 4, as this is a mini-review.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.

For the content, all is well-covered but it would be better if sex is integrated into the other 3 pillars of heterogeneity.

We integrated sex into one of the three pillars of heterogeneity. Unfortunately, there are only a few studies investigating sex-dependent differences. Studies on which the heterogeneity classifications were made did not take into account this matter. Hence, the purpose of this mini-review was to point out and address this gap in the field.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 17 Feb 2023

Theo Mantamadiotis, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.138634.r161164

The mini-review explores the very interesting observations that male patient with GBM exhibit a higher incidence and fair worse than female patients with GBM. The authors discuss many valid biological phenomena related to the tumor microenvironment and sex-specific differences among tumor infiltrating immune cells and other cell types found in GBM.

Although the sex-specific biology is discussed, the review is divided into sections based on technologies, rather than biology. This approach distracts from the interesting biology.

Table 1 seems more appropriate for a technical or bioinformatic focused review, unless the authors can demonstrate that each of these approaches has discovered something relevant to the biology of sex-specific differences.

Other parts of the manuscript which require improvement are Figure 1 legend text. The diagram and legend could be better presented. A clear explanation of what Figure 1 shows is required.

Figure 3 is difficult to understand with all the layers of information. I don’t understand what “Chronological..” means in the figure title. Some inner dark blue sections indicate biological information (hypoxia/development), while others indicate cell types and words like “Spatial-OPC”. Can this figure be edited to fix these inconsistencies? The figure legend needs more text to explain what is shown.

The manuscript needs editing to correct language errors. For example, in the Abstract, the words “However, despite..” are used together. “However” is redundant here, so should be deleted. The word ”exposed” as used in the abstract and with the body text, is wrong – the authors mean “revealed”. Another example is in the Conclusions section. Near the end of Conclusions, “it is warrant” is used but it's unclear what the context is.

Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?

Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the review written in accessible language?

No
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Cancer biology, brain cancer, molecular biology, gene expression, animal models, developmental biology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 09 Aug 2023

Jakub Mieczkowski

09 Aug 2023

Author Response

Table 1 seems more appropriate for a technical or bioinformatic focused review, unless the authors can demonstrate that each of these approaches has discovered something relevant to the biology of ... Continue reading Table 1 seems more appropriate for a technical or bioinformatic focused review, unless the authors can demonstrate that each of these approaches has discovered something relevant to the biology of sex-specific differences.

Table 1 was removed from the main text. There were no sex-specific differences mentioned in these articles.

Other parts of the manuscript which require improvement are Figure 1 legend text. The diagram and legend could be better presented. A clear explanation of what Figure 1 shows is required.[AP1]

Figure 1 was changed accordingly. A detailed description of the information present in Figure 1 is present in the introduction section. The title of Figure 1 was corrected.

Figure 3 is difficult to understand with all the layers of information. I don’t understand what “Chronological..” means in the figure title. Some inner dark blue sections indicate biological information (hypoxia/development), while others indicate cell types and words like “Spatial-OPC”. Can this figure be edited to fix these inconsistencies? The figure legend needs more text to explain what is shown.

The title and description of the figure were changed accordingly. Names of specific subtypes were cited from primary publications. The goal of this article was to show and point out these differences which should be unified in future studies.

The manuscript needs editing to correct language errors. For example, in the Abstract, the words “However, despite..” are used together. “However” is redundant here, so should be deleted. The word ”exposed” as used in the abstract and with the body text, is wrong – the authors mean “revealed”. Another example is in the Conclusions section. Near the end of Conclusions, “it is warrant” is used but it's unclear what the context is.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.
Table 1 seems more appropriate for a technical or bioinformatic focused review, unless the authors can demonstrate that each of these approaches has discovered something relevant to the biology of sex-specific differences.

Table 1 was removed from the main text. There were no sex-specific differences mentioned in these articles.

Other parts of the manuscript which require improvement are Figure 1 legend text. The diagram and legend could be better presented. A clear explanation of what Figure 1 shows is required.[AP1]

Figure 1 was changed accordingly. A detailed description of the information present in Figure 1 is present in the introduction section. The title of Figure 1 was corrected.

Figure 3 is difficult to understand with all the layers of information. I don’t understand what “Chronological..” means in the figure title. Some inner dark blue sections indicate biological information (hypoxia/development), while others indicate cell types and words like “Spatial-OPC”. Can this figure be edited to fix these inconsistencies? The figure legend needs more text to explain what is shown.

The title and description of the figure were changed accordingly. Names of specific subtypes were cited from primary publications. The goal of this article was to show and point out these differences which should be unified in future studies.

The manuscript needs editing to correct language errors. For example, in the Abstract, the words “However, despite..” are used together. “However” is redundant here, so should be deleted. The word ”exposed” as used in the abstract and with the body text, is wrong – the authors mean “revealed”. Another example is in the Conclusions section. Near the end of Conclusions, “it is warrant” is used but it's unclear what the context is.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 09 Aug 2023

Jakub Mieczkowski

09 Aug 2023

Author Response

Table 1 seems more appropriate for a technical or bioinformatic focused review, unless the authors can demonstrate that each of these approaches has discovered something relevant to the biology of ... Continue reading Table 1 seems more appropriate for a technical or bioinformatic focused review, unless the authors can demonstrate that each of these approaches has discovered something relevant to the biology of sex-specific differences.

Table 1 was removed from the main text. There were no sex-specific differences mentioned in these articles.

Other parts of the manuscript which require improvement are Figure 1 legend text. The diagram and legend could be better presented. A clear explanation of what Figure 1 shows is required.[AP1]

Figure 1 was changed accordingly. A detailed description of the information present in Figure 1 is present in the introduction section. The title of Figure 1 was corrected.

Figure 3 is difficult to understand with all the layers of information. I don’t understand what “Chronological..” means in the figure title. Some inner dark blue sections indicate biological information (hypoxia/development), while others indicate cell types and words like “Spatial-OPC”. Can this figure be edited to fix these inconsistencies? The figure legend needs more text to explain what is shown.

The title and description of the figure were changed accordingly. Names of specific subtypes were cited from primary publications. The goal of this article was to show and point out these differences which should be unified in future studies.

The manuscript needs editing to correct language errors. For example, in the Abstract, the words “However, despite..” are used together. “However” is redundant here, so should be deleted. The word ”exposed” as used in the abstract and with the body text, is wrong – the authors mean “revealed”. Another example is in the Conclusions section. Near the end of Conclusions, “it is warrant” is used but it's unclear what the context is.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.
Table 1 seems more appropriate for a technical or bioinformatic focused review, unless the authors can demonstrate that each of these approaches has discovered something relevant to the biology of sex-specific differences.

Table 1 was removed from the main text. There were no sex-specific differences mentioned in these articles.

Other parts of the manuscript which require improvement are Figure 1 legend text. The diagram and legend could be better presented. A clear explanation of what Figure 1 shows is required.[AP1]

Figure 1 was changed accordingly. A detailed description of the information present in Figure 1 is present in the introduction section. The title of Figure 1 was corrected.

Figure 3 is difficult to understand with all the layers of information. I don’t understand what “Chronological..” means in the figure title. Some inner dark blue sections indicate biological information (hypoxia/development), while others indicate cell types and words like “Spatial-OPC”. Can this figure be edited to fix these inconsistencies? The figure legend needs more text to explain what is shown.

The title and description of the figure were changed accordingly. Names of specific subtypes were cited from primary publications. The goal of this article was to show and point out these differences which should be unified in future studies.

The manuscript needs editing to correct language errors. For example, in the Abstract, the words “However, despite..” are used together. “However” is redundant here, so should be deleted. The word ”exposed” as used in the abstract and with the body text, is wrong – the authors mean “revealed”. Another example is in the Conclusions section. Near the end of Conclusions, “it is warrant” is used but it's unclear what the context is.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 24 Oct 2022

Dieter Henrik Heiland, Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.138634.r153463

This is a very enjoyable overview of the various layers of omic knowledge that have been gathered over the last few years. The article is well-written and provides the information expected from a mini-review. The illustrations are well laid out and clear.

In Fig. 2, the correct nomenclature should be taken into account. It says "reactive glia", which is incorrect and should be called "radial glia". After minimal adjustments support the indexing.

Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?

Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the review written in accessible language?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Single cell omics, spatially resolved multiomics, computational biology, software development, mathematical cancer-models

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 09 Aug 2023

Jakub Mieczkowski

09 Aug 2023

Author Response

In Fig. 3 the wording “reactive glia” was used because it is an original wording used by the authors of the primary publication. The purpose of the article was to ... Continue reading In Fig. 3 the wording “reactive glia” was used because it is an original wording used by the authors of the primary publication. The purpose of the article was to show and point out used nomenclature and provide a good background for further studies.
In Fig. 3 the wording “reactive glia” was used because it is an original wording used by the authors of the primary publication. The purpose of the article was to show and point out used nomenclature and provide a good background for further studies.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 09 Aug 2023

Jakub Mieczkowski

09 Aug 2023

Author Response

In Fig. 3 the wording “reactive glia” was used because it is an original wording used by the authors of the primary publication. The purpose of the article was to ... Continue reading In Fig. 3 the wording “reactive glia” was used because it is an original wording used by the authors of the primary publication. The purpose of the article was to show and point out used nomenclature and provide a good background for further studies.
In Fig. 3 the wording “reactive glia” was used because it is an original wording used by the authors of the primary publication. The purpose of the article was to show and point out used nomenclature and provide a good background for further studies.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 09 Aug 23		read
Version 1 17 Oct 22	read	read	read

Dieter Henrik Heiland, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Theo Mantamadiotis, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
Georges Nemer, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

10 Aug 2023 | for Version 2

Theo Mantamadiotis, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have done an excellent job writing & revising this review, presenting pivotal research OMIC studies investigating the GBM tumor microenvironment and sex-specific differences.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Cancer biology, brain cancer, molecular biology, gene expression, animal models, developmental biology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

01 Mar 2023 | for Version 1

Georges Nemer, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Beirut Governorate, Lebanon

16 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

In the form, there are a couple of typos and grammar mistakes as well as redundant "words" that should be corrected like "on the other side" on pages 3 and 6 and the repetition of "on the other hand" in different contexts.
The authors should also correct the label "in this study" on page 4, as this is a mini-review.
For the content, all is well-covered but it would be better if sex is integrated into the other 3 pillars of heterogeneity.

The mini-review can be Approved after these minor corrections.

Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?

Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the review written in accessible language?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Transcriptomics, exome sequencing

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

09 Aug 2023

Jakub Mieczkowski

In the form, there are a couple of typos and grammar mistakes as well as redundant "words" that should be corrected like "on the other side" on pages 3 and 6 and the repetition of "on the other hand" in different contexts.

The authors should also correct the label "in this study" on page 4, as this is a mini-review.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.

For the content, all is well-covered but it would be better if sex is integrated into the other 3 pillars of heterogeneity.

We integrated sex into one of the three pillars of heterogeneity. Unfortunately, there are only a few studies investigating sex-dependent differences. Studies on which the heterogeneity classifications were made did not take into account this matter. Hence, the purpose of this mini-review was to point out and address this gap in the field.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

17 Feb 2023 | for Version 1

Theo Mantamadiotis, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

17 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?

Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the review written in accessible language?

No
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Cancer biology, brain cancer, molecular biology, gene expression, animal models, developmental biology

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

09 Aug 2023

Jakub Mieczkowski

Table 1 seems more appropriate for a technical or bioinformatic focused review, unless the authors can demonstrate that each of these approaches has discovered something relevant to the biology of sex-specific differences.

Table 1 was removed from the main text. There were no sex-specific differences mentioned in these articles.

Other parts of the manuscript which require improvement are Figure 1 legend text. The diagram and legend could be better presented. A clear explanation of what Figure 1 shows is required.[AP1]

Figure 1 was changed accordingly. A detailed description of the information present in Figure 1 is present in the introduction section. The title of Figure 1 was corrected.

Figure 3 is difficult to understand with all the layers of information. I don’t understand what “Chronological..” means in the figure title. Some inner dark blue sections indicate biological information (hypoxia/development), while others indicate cell types and words like “Spatial-OPC”. Can this figure be edited to fix these inconsistencies? The figure legend needs more text to explain what is shown.

The title and description of the figure were changed accordingly. Names of specific subtypes were cited from primary publications. The goal of this article was to show and point out these differences which should be unified in future studies.

The manuscript needs editing to correct language errors. For example, in the Abstract, the words “However, despite..” are used together. “However” is redundant here, so should be deleted. The word ”exposed” as used in the abstract and with the body text, is wrong – the authors mean “revealed”. Another example is in the Conclusions section. Near the end of Conclusions, “it is warrant” is used but it's unclear what the context is.

The main manuscript text was edited accordingly.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

30 Views

24 Oct 2022 | for Version 1

Dieter Henrik Heiland, Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

30 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?

Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the review written in accessible language?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Single cell omics, spatially resolved multiomics, computational biology, software development, mathematical cancer-models

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Delgado-López PD, Corrales-García EM: Survival in glioblastoma: a review on the impact of treatment modalities. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2016; 18(11): 1062–1071. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Lara-Velazquez M, Al-Kharboosh R, Jeanneret S, et al.: Advances in Brain Tumor Surgery for Glioblastoma in Adults. Brain Sci. 2017; 7(12). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Szopa W, Burley TA, Kramer-Marek G, et al.: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Biomarkers in Glioblastoma: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017; 2017: 8013513–8013575. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Patel AP, Tirosh I, Trombetta JJ, et al.: Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science. 2014; 344(6190): 1396–1401. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Yang W, Warrington NM, Taylor SJ, et al.: Sex differences in GBM revealed by analysis of patient imaging, transcriptome, and survival data. Sci. Transl. Med. 2019; 11(473): eaao5223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Sanson M, Marie Y, Paris S, et al.: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 codon 132 mutation is an important prognostic biomarker in gliomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009; 27(25): 4150–4154. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Han S, Liu Y, Cai SJ, et al.: IDH mutation in glioma: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets. Br. J. Cancer. 2020; 122(11): 1580–1589. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Schiffgens S, Wilkens L, Brandes AA, et al.: Sex-specific clinicopathological significance of novel (Frizzled-7) and established (MGMT, IDH1) biomarkers in glioblastoma. Oncotarget. 2016; 7(34): 55169–55180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Tierling S, Jurgens-Wemheuer WM, Leismann A, et al.: Bisulfite profiling of the MGMT promoter and comparison with routine testing in glioblastoma diagnostics. Clin. Epigenetics. 2022; 14(1): 1–12. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Sun T, Warrington NM, Luo J, et al.: Sexually dimorphic RB inactivation underlies mesenchymal glioblastoma prevalence in males. J. Clin. Invest. 2014; 124(9): 4123–4133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Zhang M, Zhang L, Hei R, et al.: CDK inhibitors in cancer therapy, an overview of recent development. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2022; 11(5): 1913–1935.

[12] 12. Huang S, Song Z, Zhang T, et al.: Identification of Immune Cell Infiltration and Immune-Related Genes in the Tumor Microenvironment of Glioblastomas. Front. Immunol. 2020; 11: 585034. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Luo W, Lin GN, Song W, et al.: Single-cell spatial transcriptomic analysis reveals common and divergent features of developing postnatal granule cerebellar cells and medulloblastoma. BMC Biol. 2021; 19(1): 135. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Verhaak RGW, Hoadley KA, Purdom E, et al.: Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010; 17(1): 98–110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Wang Q, Hu B, Kim H, et al.: Tumor Evolution of Glioma-Intrinsic Gene Expression Subtypes Associates with Immunological Changes in the Microenvironment. Cancer Cell. 2017; 32(1): 42–56.e6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Neftel C, Laffy J, Filbin MG, et al.: An Integrative Model of Cellular States, Plasticity, and Genetics for Glioblastoma. Cell. 2019; 178(4): 835–849.e21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Bao S, Wu Q, McLendon RE, et al.: Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the DNA damage response. Nature. 2006; 444(7120): 756–760. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Chen J, Li Y, Yu TS, et al.: A restricted cell population propagates glioblastoma growth after chemotherapy. Nature. 2012; 488(7412): 522–526. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Comba A, Faisal SM, Varela ML, et al.: Uncovering Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity of High-Grade Gliomas: From Disease Biology to Therapeutic Implications. Front. Oncol. 2021; 11(11): 703764. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Anghileri E, Patane M, Ianni ND, et al.: Deciphering the labyrinthine system of the immune microenvironment in recurrent glioblastoma: Recent original advances and lessons from clinical immunotherapeutic approaches. Cancers. 2021; 13(24): L6156. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Glass R, Synowitz M: CNS macrophages and peripheral myeloid cells in brain tumours. Acta Neuropathol. 2014; 128(3): 347–362. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Walentynowicz KA, Ochocka N, Pasierbinska M, et al.: In search for reliable markers of glioma-induced polarization of microglia. Front. Immunol. 2018; 9: 1329. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Bianconi A, Aruta G, Rizzo F, et al.: Systematic Review on Tumor Microenvironment in Glial Neoplasm: From Understanding Pathogenesis to Future Therapeutic Perspectives. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022; 23(8): 4166. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Klemm F, Maas RR, Bowman RL, et al.: Interrogation of the Microenvironmental Landscape in Brain Tumors Reveals Disease-Specific Alterations of Immune Cells. Cell. 2020; 181(7): 1643–1660.e17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Crivii CB, Bosca AB, Melincovici CS, et al.: Glioblastoma Microenvironment and Cellular Interactions. Cancers. 2022; 14(4): 1092. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Ravi VM, Will P, Kueckelhaus J, et al.: Spatially resolved multi-omics deciphers bidirectional tumor-host interdependence in glioblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2022; 40(6): 639–655.e13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Maynard KR, Collado-Torres L, Wever LM, et al.: Transcriptome-scale spatial gene expression in the human dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 2021; 24(3): 425–436. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Ståhl PL, Salmen F, Vickovic S, et al.: Visualization and analysis of gene expression in tissue sections by spatial transcriptomics. Science. 2016; 353(6294): 78–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Kleshchevnikov V, Shmatko A, Dann E, et al.: Cell2location maps fine-grained cell types in spatial transcriptomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40(5): 661–671. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Andersson A, Bergenstrahle J, Asp M, et al.: Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics enables probabilistic inference of cell type topography. Commun Biol. 2020; 3(1): 565. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Elosua-Bayes M, Nieto P, Mereu E, et al.: SPOTlight: Seeded NMF regression to deconvolute spatial transcriptomics spots with single-cell transcriptomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021; 49(9): e50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Zhao E, Stone MR, Ren X, et al.: Spatial transcriptomics at subspot resolution with BayesSpace. Nat. Biotechnol. 2021; 39(11): 1375–1384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Cable DM, Murray E, Zou LS, et al.: Robust decomposition of cell type mixtures in spatial transcriptomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40(4): 517–526. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Stuart T, Butler A, Hoffman P, et al.: Comprehensive Integration of Single-Cell Data. Cell. 2019; 177(7): 1888–1902.e21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Biancalani T, Scalia G, Buffoni L, et al.: Deep learning and alignment of spatially resolved single-cell transcriptomes with Tangram. Nat. Methods. 2021; 18(11): 1352–1362. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Ma Y, Zhou X: Spatially informed cell-type deconvolution for spatial transcriptomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40: 1349–1359. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Sun L, Hui AM, Su Q, et al.: Neuronal and glioma-derived stem cell factor induces angiogenesis within the brain. Cancer Cell. 2006; 9(4): 287–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Phillips HS, Kharbanda S, Chen R, et al.: Molecular subclasses of high-grade glioma predict prognosis, delineate a pattern of disease progression, and resemble stages in neurogenesis. Cancer Cell. 2006; 9(3): 157–173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Murat A, Migliavacca E, Gorlia T, et al.: Stem cell-related ‘self-renewal’ signature and high epidermal growth factor receptor expression associated with resistance to concomitant chemoradiotherapy in glioblastoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008; 26(18): 3015–3024. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Beroukhim R, Getz G, Nghiemphu L, et al.: Assessing the significance of chromosomal aberrations in cancer: methodology and application to glioma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007; 104(50): 20007–20012. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Cahoy JD, Emery B, Kaushai A, et al.: A transcriptome database for astrocytes, neurons, and oligodendrocytes: a new resource for understanding brain development and function. J. Neurosci. 2008; 28(1): 264–278. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Sottoriva A, Spiteri I, Piccirillo SGM, et al.: Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013; 110(10): 4009–4014. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Sun T, Plutynski A, Ward S, et al.: An integrative view on sex differences in brain tumors. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2015; 72(17): 3323–3342. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Tirosh I, Venteicher AS, Hebert C, et al.: Single-cell RNA-seq supports a developmental hierarchy in human oligodendroglioma. Nature. 2016; 539(7628): 309–313. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Venteicher AS, Tirosh I, Hebert C, et al.: Decoupling genetics, lineages, and microenvironment in IDH-mutant gliomas by single-cell RNA-seq. Science. 355(6332): eaai8478. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Darmanis S, Sloan SA, Croote D, et al.: Single-Cell RNA-Seq Analysis of Infiltrating Neoplastic Cells at the Migrating Front of Human Glioblastoma. Cell Rep. 2017; 21(5): 1399–1410. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[47] 47. Friebel E, Kapolou K, Unger S, et al.: Single-Cell Mapping of Human Brain Cancer Reveals Tumor-Specific Instruction of Tissue-Invading Leukocytes. Cell. 2020; 181(7): 1626–1642.e20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Müller S, Kohanbash G, Liu SJ, et al.: Single-cell profiling of human gliomas reveals macrophage ontogeny as a basis for regional differences in macrophage activation in the tumor microenvironment. Genome Biol. 2017; 18(1): 234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Sankowski R, Bottcher C, Masuda T, et al.: Mapping microglia states in the human brain through the integration of high-dimensional techniques. Nat. Neurosci. 2019; 22(12): 2098–2110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Mathewson ND, Ashenberg O, Tirosh I, et al.: Inhibitory CD161 receptor identified in glioma-infiltrating T cells by single-cell analysis. Cell. 2021; 184(5): 1281–1298.e26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. Pombo Antunes AR, Scheyltjens I, Lodi F, et al.: Single-cell profiling of myeloid cells in glioblastoma across species and disease stage reveals macrophage competition and specialization. Nat. Neurosci. 2021; 24(4): 595–610. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[52] 52. Bhandari A, Koppen J, Agzarian M: Convolutional neural networks for brain tumour segmentation. Insights Imaging. 2020; 11(1): 77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[53] 53. Heiland DH, Gaebelein A, Borries M, et al.: Microenvironment-Derived Regulation of HIF Signaling Drives Transcriptional Heterogeneity in Glioblastoma Multiforme. Mol. Cancer Res. 2018; 16(4): 655–668. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Grimes DR, Jansen M, Macauley RJ, et al.: Evidence for hypoxia increasing the tempo of evolution in glioblastoma. Br. J. Cancer. 2020; 123(10): 1562–1569. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[55] 55. Ravi VM, Neidert N, Will P, et al.: T-cell dysfunction in the glioblastoma microenvironment is mediated by myeloid cells releasing interleukin-10. Nat. Commun. 2022; 13(1): 925. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[56] 56. Zhu J, Tsai HJ, Gordon MR, et al.: Cellular Stress Associated with Aneuploidy. Dev. Cell. 2018; 44(4): 420–431. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics to reveal the glioblastoma heterogeneity

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Figure 1. Major sex-dependent clinicopathological and gene expression differences affecting therapeutic outcomes, prognosis, genetics, and immunology of glioblastoma patients.

Integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics

Figure 2. Integration (deconvolution) strategy of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics data (based on the 10x Genomics protocol).

The first layer of glioblastoma heterogeneity: bulk-RNA sequencing

Figure 3. Graphical presentation of layers of GBM.

The second layer of heterogeneity: single-cell RNA sequencing

Figure 4. The schematic representation of GBM heterogeneity at the cellular level and selected mechanisms of immunosuppression within TME.

The third layer of heterogeneity: spatial transcriptomics

Conclusions

Data availability

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated