Search

Motivation Cell–cell interactions (CCIs) consist of cells exchanging signals with themselves and neighboring cells by expressing ligand and receptor molecules and play a key role in cellular development, tissue homeostasis, and other critical biological functions. Since direct measurement of CCIs is challenging, multiple methods have been developed to infer CCIs by quantifying correlations between the gene expression of the ligands and receptors that mediate CCIs, originally from bulk RNA-sequencing data and more recently from single-cell or spatially resolved transcriptomics (SRT) data. SRT has a particular advantage over single-cell approaches, since ligand–receptor correlations can be computed between cells or spots that are physically close in the tissue. However, the transcript counts of individual ligands and receptors in SRT data are generally low, complicating the inference of CCIs from expression correlations. Results We introduce Copulacci, a count-based model for inferring CCIs from SRT data. Copulacci uses a Gaussian copula to model dependencies between the expression of ligands and receptors from nearby spatial locations even when the transcript counts are low. On simulated data, Copulacci outperforms existing CCI inference methods based on the standard Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients. Using several real SRT datasets, we show that Copulacci discovers biologically meaningful ligand–receptor interactions that are lowly expressed and undiscoverable by existing CCI inference methods. Availability and implementation Copulacci is implemented in Python and available at https://github.com/raphael-group/copulacci. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epistasis, or interactions in which alleles at one locus modify the fitness effects of alleles at other loci, plays a fundamental role in genetics, protein evolution, and many other areas of biology. Epistasis is typically quantified by computing the deviation from the expected fitness under an additive or multiplicative model using one of several formulae. However, these formulae are not all equivalent. Importantly, one widely used formula - which we call the chimeric formula - measures deviations from a multiplicative fitness model on an additive scale, thus mixing two measurement scales. We show that for pairwise interactions, the chimeric formula yields a different magnitude, but the same sign (synergistic vs. antagonistic) of epistasis compared to the multiplicative formula that measures both fitness and deviations on a multiplicative scale. However, for higher-order interactions, we show that the chimeric formula can have both different magnitude and sign compared to the multiplicative formula - thus confusing negative epistatic interactions with positive interactions, and vice versa. We resolve these inconsistencies by deriving fundamental connections between the different epistasis formulae and the parameters of the multivariate Bernoulli distribution . Our results demonstrate that the additive and multiplicative epistasis formulae are more mathematically sound than the chimeric formula. Moreover, we demonstrate that the mathematical issues with the chimeric epistasis formula lead to markedly different biological interpretations of real data. Analyzing multi-gene knockout data in yeast, multi-way drug interactions in E. coli , and deep mutational scanning (DMS) of several proteins, we find that 10 - 60% of higher-order interactions have a change in sign with the multiplicative or additive epistasis formula. These sign changes result in qualitatively different findings on functional divergence in the yeast genome, synergistic vs. antagonistic drug interactions, and and epistasis between protein mutations. In particular, in the yeast data, the more appropriate multiplicative formula identifies nearly 500 additional negative three-way interactions, thus extending the trigenic interaction network by 25%.