Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Computational framework identifies genetic interactions in lung adenocarcinoma, highlighting implications for precision oncology.
Genetic interactions (GIs) drive carcinogenesis and treatment resistance via non-additive phenotypic effects between genes. Traditional bulk-based methods fail to capture cell-type-specific interactions in heterogeneous tumors like lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), limiting precision oncology. Resolving cell-type-specific GIs at single-cell resolution persists as a major hurdle, hindered by limited analytical methodologies. Here, we develop scPGI-finder, a computational framework that identifies gene pairs whose coordinated high expression is associated with higher proliferation-related fitness at single-cell resolution, which we refer to operationally as single-cell positive genetic interactions (scPGIs). Using scPGI-finder, we identify 49,808 and 15,896 scPGIs spanning epithelial cells and T cells in LUAD, respectively. The predicted scPGIs display tighter junctions in the protein interaction network compared to non-scPGIs. Furthermore, we demonstrate the predictive power of scPGIs for malignancy and immunotherapy response through multi-omics validation across diverse cohorts. Notably, with a mean area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 0.974 in bulk tissue validation, the epithelial-derived scPGI classifier enables concordant malignancy identification across scales ranging from epithelial single cells and lung cancer cell lines, through spatial transcriptomic maps, to bulk LUAD tissue profiles. Additionally, a six-scPGI T cell signature reliably forecasts immunotherapy efficacy, with AUROC values exceeding 0.80 across multiple datasets. Together, our research advances the understanding of underlying cancer-positive GIs at the single-cell level. scPGIs of epithelial and T cells serve as robust biomarkers for malignancy evaluation and treatment response, offering a translational framework for precision oncology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: