Harold Brayan Arteaga-Arteaga, Mariana S Candamil-Cortés, Brian Breaux, Pablo Guillen-Rondon, Simon Orozco-Arias, Reinel Tabares-Soto
{"title":"Machine learning applications on intratumoral heterogeneity in glioblastoma using single-cell RNA sequencing data.","authors":"Harold Brayan Arteaga-Arteaga, Mariana S Candamil-Cortés, Brian Breaux, Pablo Guillen-Rondon, Simon Orozco-Arias, Reinel Tabares-Soto","doi":"10.1093/bfgp/elad002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing all fields that affect people's lives and health. One of the most critical applications is in the study of tumors. It is the case of glioblastoma (GBM) that has behaviors that need to be understood to develop effective therapies. Due to advances in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), it is possible to understand the cellular and molecular heterogeneity in the GBM. Given that there are different cell groups in these tumors, there is a need to apply Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. It will allow extracting information to understand how cancer changes and broaden the search for effective treatments. We proposed multiple comparisons of ML algorithms to classify cell groups based on the GBM scRNA-seq data. This broad comparison spectrum can show the scientific-medical community which models can achieve the best performance in this task. In this work are classified the following cell groups: Tumor Core (TC), Tumor Periphery (TP) and Normal Periphery (NP), in binary and multi-class scenarios. This work presents the biomarker candidates found for the models with the best results. The analyses presented here allow us to verify the biomarker candidates to understand the genetic characteristics of GBM, which may be affected by a suitable identification of GBM heterogeneity. This work obtained for the four scenarios covered cross-validation results of $93.03\\% \\pm 5.37\\%$, $97.42\\% \\pm 3.94\\%$, $98.27\\% \\pm 1.81\\%$ and $93.04\\% \\pm 6.88\\%$ for the classification of TP versus TC, TP versus NP, NP versus TP and TC (TPC) and NP versus TP versus TC, respectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elad002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing all fields that affect people's lives and health. One of the most critical applications is in the study of tumors. It is the case of glioblastoma (GBM) that has behaviors that need to be understood to develop effective therapies. Due to advances in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), it is possible to understand the cellular and molecular heterogeneity in the GBM. Given that there are different cell groups in these tumors, there is a need to apply Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. It will allow extracting information to understand how cancer changes and broaden the search for effective treatments. We proposed multiple comparisons of ML algorithms to classify cell groups based on the GBM scRNA-seq data. This broad comparison spectrum can show the scientific-medical community which models can achieve the best performance in this task. In this work are classified the following cell groups: Tumor Core (TC), Tumor Periphery (TP) and Normal Periphery (NP), in binary and multi-class scenarios. This work presents the biomarker candidates found for the models with the best results. The analyses presented here allow us to verify the biomarker candidates to understand the genetic characteristics of GBM, which may be affected by a suitable identification of GBM heterogeneity. This work obtained for the four scenarios covered cross-validation results of $93.03\% \pm 5.37\%$, $97.42\% \pm 3.94\%$, $98.27\% \pm 1.81\%$ and $93.04\% \pm 6.88\%$ for the classification of TP versus TC, TP versus NP, NP versus TP and TC (TPC) and NP versus TP versus TC, respectively.