Visual cohort comparison for spatial single-cell omics-data

Spatially-resolved omics-data enable researchers to precisely distinguish cell types in tissue and explore their spatial interactions, enabling deep understanding of tissue functionality. To understand what causes or deteriorates a disease and identify related biomarkers, clinical researchers regularly perform large-scale cohort studies, requiring the comparison of such data at cellular level. In such studies, with little a-priori knowledge of what to expect in the data, explorative data analysis is a necessity. Here, we present an interactive visual analysis workflow for the comparison of cohorts of spatially-resolved omics-data. Our workflow allows the comparative analysis of two cohorts based on multiple levels-of-detail, from simple abundance of contained cell types over complex co-localization patterns to individual comparison of complete tissue images. As a result, the workflow enables the identification of cohort-differentiating features, as well as outlier samples at any stage of the workflow. During the development of the workflow, we continuously consulted with domain experts. To show the effectiveness of the workflow, we conducted multiple case studies with domain experts from different application areas and with different data modalities.

[1]  Antoni Ribas,et al.  Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial , 2014, The Lancet.

[2]  Salil S. Bhate,et al.  Deep Profiling of Mouse Splenic Architecture with CODEX Multiplexed Imaging , 2017, Cell.

[3]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  A Multi-Level Typology of Abstract Visualization Tasks , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[4]  Hans-Georg Pagendarm,et al.  Comparative Visualization - Approaches and Examples , 1994 .

[5]  Carolina Wählby,et al.  In situ sequencing for RNA analysis in preserved tissue and cells , 2013, Nature Methods.

[6]  Bernd Bodenmiller,et al.  Automatic single cell segmentation on highly multiplexed tissue images , 2015, Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology.

[7]  Eduard Gröller,et al.  Bladder Runner: Visual Analytics for the Exploration of RT‐Induced Bladder Toxicity in a Cohort Study , 2018, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[8]  Stephan Beck,et al.  Making multi-omics data accessible to researchers , 2019, Scientific Data.

[9]  P. Rousseeuw Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis , 1987 .

[10]  Charl P. Botha,et al.  Comparative exploration of whole-body MR through locally rigid transforms , 2013, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[11]  Jonathan C. Roberts,et al.  Visual comparison for information visualization , 2011, Inf. Vis..

[12]  Philip T. Kortum,et al.  Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale , 2009 .

[13]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[14]  J. Buhmann,et al.  Highly multiplexed imaging of tumor tissues with subcellular resolution by mass cytometry , 2014, Nature Methods.

[15]  Markus Wagner,et al.  KAVAGait: Knowledge-Assisted Visual Analytics for Clinical Gait Analysis , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[16]  Pat Hanrahan,et al.  Polaris: A System for Query, Analysis, and Visualization of Multidimensional Relational Databases , 2002, IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph..

[17]  Daniel A. Keim,et al.  v‐plots: Designing Hybrid Charts for the Comparative Analysis of Data Distributions , 2020, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[18]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Interactive Dynamics for Visual Analysis , 2012 .

[19]  M. Mearin,et al.  Mass Cytometry of the Human Mucosal Immune System Identifies Tissue- and Disease-Associated Immune Subsets. , 2016, Immunity.

[20]  Klaus H. Hinrichs,et al.  Interactive Comparative Visualization of Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation Data , 2013, VMV.

[21]  Bernhard Preim,et al.  Visual Analytics of Image-Centric Cohort Studies in Epidemiology , 2015, Visualization in Medicine and Life Sciences III.

[22]  David Gotz,et al.  Interactive Visual Patient Cohort Analysis , 2012 .

[23]  Peter Kampstra,et al.  Beanplot: A Boxplot Alternative for Visual Comparison of Distributions , 2008 .

[24]  G. Elisabeta Marai,et al.  RemBrain: Exploring Dynamic Biospatial Networks with Mosaic Matrices and Mirror Glyphs , 2017, Visualization and Data Analysis.

[25]  Elmar Eisemann,et al.  Comparative Visualization for Diffusion Tensor Imaging Group Study at Multiple Levels of Detail , 2017, VCBM.

[26]  Cynthia A. Brewer,et al.  ColorBrewer in Print: A Catalog of Color Schemes for Maps , 2003 .

[27]  Alexander van Oudenaarden,et al.  Spatially resolved transcriptomics and beyond , 2014, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[28]  Brandy E. Olin,et al.  CytoMAP: A Spatial Analysis Toolbox Reveals Features of Myeloid Cell Organization in Lymphoid Tissues , 2019, bioRxiv.

[29]  Holger Moch,et al.  The single-cell pathology landscape of breast cancer , 2020, Nature.

[30]  Michael Angelo,et al.  Mapping cell phenotypes in breast cancer , 2020 .

[31]  Bernd Bodenmiller,et al.  miCAT: A toolbox for analysis of cell phenotypes and interactions in multiplex image cytometry data , 2017, Nature Methods.

[32]  P. Sorger,et al.  Facetto: Combining Unsupervised and Supervised Learning for Hierarchical Phenotype Analysis in Multi-Channel Image Data , 2019, bioRxiv.

[33]  Kun Zhang,et al.  Fluorescent in situ sequencing (FISSEQ) of RNA for gene expression profiling in intact cells and tissues , 2015, Nature Protocols.

[34]  Kirstie J. Whitaker,et al.  Raincloud plots: a multi-platform tool for robust data visualization , 2018, PeerJ Prepr..

[35]  Michalis Vazirgiannis,et al.  Clustering validity assessment: finding the optimal partitioning of a data set , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[36]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  Envisioning Information , 1990 .

[37]  Carlos Eduardo Scheidegger,et al.  Looks Good To Me: Visualizations As Sanity Checks , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[38]  Jeremy L. Muhlich,et al.  Interpretative guides for interacting with tissue atlas and digital pathology data using the Minerva browser , 2020 .

[39]  Garry Nolan,et al.  MIBI-TOF: A multiplexed imaging platform relates cellular phenotypes and tissue structure , 2019, Science Advances.

[40]  Marieke E Ijsselsteijn,et al.  Cancer immunophenotyping by seven‐colour multispectral imaging without tyramide signal amplification , 2018, The journal of pathology. Clinical research.

[41]  Hanspeter Pfister,et al.  Screenit: Visual Analysis of Cellular Screens , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[42]  R. Mayeux Biomarkers: Potential uses and limitations , 2004, NeuroRX.

[43]  Elmar Eisemann,et al.  Visual analysis of mass cytometry data by hierarchical stochastic neighbour embedding reveals rare cell types , 2017, Nature Communications.

[44]  Carlos Caldas,et al.  Imaging mass cytometry and multiplatform genomics define the phenogenomic landscape of breast cancer , 2020, Nature Cancer.

[45]  J. Reiber,et al.  Integrated Visual Analysis for Heterogeneous Datasets in Cohort Studies , 2010 .

[46]  James C. Bezdek,et al.  Cluster validation with generalized Dunn's indices , 1995, Proceedings 1995 Second New Zealand International Two-Stream Conference on Artificial Neural Networks and Expert Systems.

[47]  Stefan Bruckner,et al.  VAICo: Visual Analysis for Image Comparison , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[48]  G. Elisabeta Marai,et al.  GRACE: A Visual Comparison Framework for Integrated Spatial and Non-Spatial Geriatric Data , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[49]  Karoly Szuhai,et al.  PRAME and HLA Class I expression patterns make synovial sarcoma a suitable target for PRAME specific T-cell receptor gene therapy , 2018, Oncoimmunology.

[50]  C. Newschaffer,et al.  Causes of death in elderly prostate cancer patients and in a comparison nonprostate cancer cohort. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[51]  Michael Thompson,et al.  A visual analytics approach to understanding care process variation and conformance , 2015, VAHC '15.

[52]  Pat Hanrahan,et al.  Polaris: a system for query, analysis and visualization of multi-dimensional relational databases , 2000, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization 2000. INFOVIS 2000. Proceedings.

[53]  Frits Koning,et al.  ImaCytE: Visual Exploration of Cellular Micro-Environments for Imaging Mass Cytometry Data , 2021, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[54]  Sarah A. Teichmann,et al.  Faculty Opinions recommendation of histoCAT: analysis of cell phenotypes and interactions in multiplex image cytometry data. , 2017 .

[55]  F. Markowetz,et al.  Quantitative Image Analysis of Cellular Heterogeneity in Breast Tumors Complements Genomic Profiling , 2012, Science Translational Medicine.

[56]  F S Fay,et al.  Visualization of single RNA transcripts in situ. , 1998, Science.

[57]  Masatoyo Nishizawa,et al.  Clinical features of neuromyelitis optica in a large Japanese cohort: comparison between phenotypes , 2011, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[58]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Dynamic queries for visual information seeking , 1994, IEEE Software.