This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Accurate estimation of cell-type composition from mixed omics data is essential for understanding tissue heterogeneity and disease mechanisms. However, existing deconvolution methods are often affected by discrepancies between reference single-cell data and target bulk, proteomic, or spatial omics measurements. This study aims to develop a robust and biologically informed framework for cross-domain cell-type deconvolution. We present CrossBranch, a dual-branch representation learning framework that integrates gene-level and pathway-level information. CrossBranch generates labeled simulated mixtures from single-cell references and jointly encodes simulated and target data through a gene-expression branch and a pathway-informed branch. A prediction head is trained using simulated mixtures with known cell-type proportions, while latent-space alignment reduces distribution discrepancies between simulated and target data. For spatial transcriptomics data, a neighboring-spot-based spatial consistency loss is further incorporated. Across bulk RNA-seq, proteomics, and spatial transcriptomics benchmarks, CrossBranch consistently achieves competitive deconvolution performance compared with existing statistical and deep learning methods. Ablation analyses confirm the contributions of pathway-level representation, cross-domain alignment, and spatial neighborhood modeling. Applications to prostate, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers further demonstrate that CrossBranch can identify tumor-associated cellular changes, survival-associated cell-type patterns, malignant epithelial localization, fibroblast–endothelial co-localization, and compartment-specific spatial organization in tumor microenvironments. CrossBranch provides a unified cross-domain deconvolution framework that improves cell-type composition inference across diverse omics modalities and supports biologically meaningful interpretation of disease microenvironments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: