Cargando…

Not every estimate counts – evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data

BACKGROUND: Variation in cell composition can dramatically impact analyses in bulk tissue samples. A commonly employed approach to mitigate this issue is to adjust statistical models using estimates of cell abundance derived directly from omics data. While an arsenal of estimation methods exists, th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Toker, Lilah, Nido, Gonzalo S., Tzoulis, Charalampos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10245417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37287013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13073-023-01195-2
_version_ 1785054860654149632
author Toker, Lilah
Nido, Gonzalo S.
Tzoulis, Charalampos
author_facet Toker, Lilah
Nido, Gonzalo S.
Tzoulis, Charalampos
author_sort Toker, Lilah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Variation in cell composition can dramatically impact analyses in bulk tissue samples. A commonly employed approach to mitigate this issue is to adjust statistical models using estimates of cell abundance derived directly from omics data. While an arsenal of estimation methods exists, the applicability of these methods to brain tissue data and whether or not cell estimates can sufficiently account for confounding cellular composition has not been adequately assessed. METHODS: We assessed the correspondence between different estimation methods based on transcriptomic (RNA sequencing, RNA-seq) and epigenomic (DNA methylation and histone acetylation) data from brain tissue samples of 49 individuals. We further evaluated the impact of different estimation approaches on the analysis of H3K27 acetylation chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) data from entorhinal cortex of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and controls. RESULTS: We show that even closely adjacent tissue samples from the same Brodmann area vary greatly in their cell composition. Comparison across different estimation methods indicates that while different estimation methods applied to the same data produce highly similar outcomes, there is a surprisingly low concordance between estimates based on different omics data modalities. Alarmingly, we show that cell type estimates may not always sufficiently account for confounding variation in cell composition. CONCLUSIONS: Our work indicates that cell composition estimation or direct quantification in one tissue sample should not be used as a proxy to the cellular composition of another tissue sample from the same brain region of an individual—even if the samples are directly adjacent. The highly similar outcomes observed among vastly different estimation methods, highlight the need for brain benchmark datasets and better validation approaches. Finally, unless validated through complementary experiments, the interpretation of analyses outcomes based on data confounded by cell composition should be done with great caution, and ideally avoided all together. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-023-01195-2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10245417
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102454172023-06-08 Not every estimate counts – evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data Toker, Lilah Nido, Gonzalo S. Tzoulis, Charalampos Genome Med Research BACKGROUND: Variation in cell composition can dramatically impact analyses in bulk tissue samples. A commonly employed approach to mitigate this issue is to adjust statistical models using estimates of cell abundance derived directly from omics data. While an arsenal of estimation methods exists, the applicability of these methods to brain tissue data and whether or not cell estimates can sufficiently account for confounding cellular composition has not been adequately assessed. METHODS: We assessed the correspondence between different estimation methods based on transcriptomic (RNA sequencing, RNA-seq) and epigenomic (DNA methylation and histone acetylation) data from brain tissue samples of 49 individuals. We further evaluated the impact of different estimation approaches on the analysis of H3K27 acetylation chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) data from entorhinal cortex of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and controls. RESULTS: We show that even closely adjacent tissue samples from the same Brodmann area vary greatly in their cell composition. Comparison across different estimation methods indicates that while different estimation methods applied to the same data produce highly similar outcomes, there is a surprisingly low concordance between estimates based on different omics data modalities. Alarmingly, we show that cell type estimates may not always sufficiently account for confounding variation in cell composition. CONCLUSIONS: Our work indicates that cell composition estimation or direct quantification in one tissue sample should not be used as a proxy to the cellular composition of another tissue sample from the same brain region of an individual—even if the samples are directly adjacent. The highly similar outcomes observed among vastly different estimation methods, highlight the need for brain benchmark datasets and better validation approaches. Finally, unless validated through complementary experiments, the interpretation of analyses outcomes based on data confounded by cell composition should be done with great caution, and ideally avoided all together. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-023-01195-2. BioMed Central 2023-06-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10245417/ /pubmed/37287013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13073-023-01195-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Toker, Lilah
Nido, Gonzalo S.
Tzoulis, Charalampos
Not every estimate counts – evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data
title Not every estimate counts – evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data
title_full Not every estimate counts – evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data
title_fullStr Not every estimate counts – evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data
title_full_unstemmed Not every estimate counts – evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data
title_short Not every estimate counts – evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data
title_sort not every estimate counts – evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10245417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37287013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13073-023-01195-2
work_keys_str_mv AT tokerlilah noteveryestimatecountsevaluationofcellcompositionestimationapproachesinbrainbulktissuedata
AT nidogonzalos noteveryestimatecountsevaluationofcellcompositionestimationapproachesinbrainbulktissuedata
AT tzoulischaralampos noteveryestimatecountsevaluationofcellcompositionestimationapproachesinbrainbulktissuedata