Parameterizing cell-to-cell regulatory heterogeneities via stochastic transcriptional profiles

Significance Cell-to-cell variations in gene regulation occur in a number of biological contexts, such as development and cancer. Discovering regulatory heterogeneities in an unbiased manner is difficult owing to the population averaging that is required for most global molecular methods. Here, we show that we can infer single-cell regulatory states by mathematically deconvolving global measurements taken as averages from small groups of cells. This averaging-and-deconvolution approach allows us to quantify single-cell regulatory heterogeneities while avoiding the measurement noise of global single-cell techniques. Our method is particularly relevant to solid tissues, where single-cell dissociation and molecular profiling is especially problematic. Regulated changes in gene expression underlie many biological processes, but globally profiling cell-to-cell variations in transcriptional regulation is problematic when measuring single cells. Transcriptome-wide identification of regulatory heterogeneities can be robustly achieved by randomly collecting small numbers of cells followed by statistical analysis. However, this stochastic-profiling approach blurs out the expression states of the individual cells in each pooled sample. Here, we show that the underlying distribution of single-cell regulatory states can be deconvolved from stochastic-profiling data through maximum-likelihood inference. Guided by the mechanisms of transcriptional regulation, we formulated plausible mixture models for cell-to-cell regulatory heterogeneity and maximized the resulting likelihood functions to infer model parameters. Inferences were validated both computationally and experimentally for different mixture models, which included regulatory states for multicellular function that were occupied by as few as 1 in 40 cells of the population. Importantly, when the method was extended to programs of heterogeneously coexpressed transcripts, we found that population-level inferences were much more accurate with pooled samples than with one-cell samples when the extent of sampling was limited. Our deconvolution method provides a means to quantify the heterogeneous regulation of molecular states efficiently and gain a deeper understanding of the heterogeneous execution of cell decisions.

[1]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Characterizing heterogeneous cellular responses to perturbations , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  J. Troge,et al.  Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing , 2011, Nature.

[3]  A. van Oudenaarden,et al.  Using Gene Expression Noise to Understand Gene Regulation , 2012, Science.

[4]  Jayanta Debnath,et al.  Morphogenesis and oncogenesis of MCF-10A mammary epithelial acini grown in three-dimensional basement membrane cultures. , 2003, Methods.

[5]  Anne E Carpenter,et al.  A Lentiviral RNAi Library for Human and Mouse Genes Applied to an Arrayed Viral High-Content Screen , 2006, Cell.

[6]  Russell Schwartz,et al.  Robust unmixing of tumor states in array comparative genomic hybridization data , 2010, Bioinform..

[7]  V. Quaranta,et al.  Fractional Proliferation: A method to deconvolve cell population dynamics from single-cell data , 2012, Nature Methods.

[8]  K. Hansen,et al.  Sequencing technology does not eliminate biological variability , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[9]  Pradeep S Rajendran,et al.  Single-cell dissection of transcriptional heterogeneity in human colon tumors , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[10]  J. Rihel,et al.  Single-Cell Transcriptional Analysis of Neuronal Progenitors , 2003, Neuron.

[11]  K. Janes,et al.  Intersection of FOXO- and RUNX1-mediated gene expression programs in single breast epithelial cells during morphogenesis and tumor progression , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  J. Berg,et al.  Statistical mechanics approach to the sample deconvolution problem. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[14]  Guy S. Salvesen,et al.  SnapShot: Caspases , 2011, Cell.

[15]  Robbie Loewith,et al.  A Pharmacological Map of the PI3-K Family Defines a Role for p110α in Insulin Signaling , 2006, Cell.

[16]  T. Hashimshony,et al.  CEL-Seq: single-cell RNA-Seq by multiplexed linear amplification. , 2012, Cell reports.

[17]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Patterns of basal signaling heterogeneity can distinguish cellular populations with different drug sensitivities , 2010, Molecular systems biology.

[18]  Hana El-Samad,et al.  Cellular noise regulons underlie fluctuations in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2012, Molecular cell.

[19]  Dennis C. Sgroi,et al.  Stromal Fibroblasts Present in Invasive Human Breast Carcinomas Promote Tumor Growth and Angiogenesis through Elevated SDF-1/CXCL12 Secretion , 2005, Cell.

[20]  K. Janes,et al.  Stochastic profiling of transcriptional regulatory heterogeneities in tissues, tumors and cultured cells , 2013, Nature Protocols.

[21]  Sean C. Bendall,et al.  Single-Cell Mass Cytometry of Differential Immune and Drug Responses Across a Human Hematopoietic Continuum , 2011, Science.

[22]  Long Cai,et al.  Single cell systems biology by super-resolution imaging and combinatorial labeling , 2012, Nature Methods.

[23]  P. Rorsman,et al.  Gene expression profiling in single cells from the pancreatic islets of Langerhans reveals lognormal distribution of mRNA levels. , 2005, Genome research.

[24]  E. O’Shea,et al.  Noise in protein expression scales with natural protein abundance , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[25]  Nazneen Rahman,et al.  Truncating mutations in the Fanconi anemia J gene BRIP1 are low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility alleles , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[26]  Kazuki Kurimoto,et al.  An improved single-cell cDNA amplification method for efficient high-density oligonucleotide microarray analysis , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[27]  E. Gabrielson,et al.  Frequent down-regulation of HIVEP2 in human breast cancer , 2005, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[28]  Pekka Ruusuvuori,et al.  Probabilistic analysis of gene expression measurements from heterogeneous tissues , 2010, Bioinform..

[29]  Esteban O. Mazzoni,et al.  Stochastic spineless expression creates the retinal mosaic for colour vision , 2006, Nature.

[30]  M. Pfaffl,et al.  Quantification noise in single cell experiments , 2011, Nucleic acids research.

[31]  David Bryder,et al.  Transcription factor profiling in individual hematopoietic progenitors by digital RT-PCR , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  K. Janes,et al.  Normal morphogenesis of epithelial tissues and progression of epithelial tumors , 2012, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Systems biology and medicine.

[33]  Kevin A. Janes,et al.  Identifying single-cell molecular programs by stochastic profiling , 2010, Nature Methods.

[34]  Scott A. Rifkin,et al.  Imaging individual mRNA molecules using multiple singly labeled probes , 2008, Nature Methods.

[35]  Lit-Hsin Loo,et al.  Heterogeneity in the physiological states and pharmacological responses of differentiating 3T3-L1 preadipocytes , 2009, The Journal of cell biology.

[36]  L. Fenton The Sum of Log-Normal Probability Distributions in Scatter Transmission Systems , 1960 .

[37]  Lit-Hsin Loo,et al.  An approach for extensibly profiling the molecular states of cellular subpopulations , 2009, Nature Methods.

[38]  Tomoharu Kajiyama,et al.  Quantitative analysis of gene expression in a single cell by qPCR , 2009, Nature Methods.

[39]  R. Sandberg,et al.  Full-Length mRNA-Seq from single cell levels of RNA and individual circulating tumor cells , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[40]  W. Stahel,et al.  Log-normal Distributions across the Sciences: Keys and Clues , 2001 .

[41]  M. Gaestel,et al.  MAPKAP kinases — MKs — two's company, three's a crowd , 2006, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[42]  Rona S. Gertner,et al.  Single-cell transcriptomics reveals bimodality in expression and splicing in immune cells , 2013, Nature.

[43]  D. Tranchina,et al.  Stochastic mRNA Synthesis in Mammalian Cells , 2006, PLoS biology.

[44]  Robert H Singer,et al.  Gene expression and the myth of the average cell. , 2003, Trends in cell biology.

[45]  Alexander van Oudenaarden,et al.  Variability in gene expression underlies incomplete penetrance , 2009, Nature.

[46]  J. Szustakowski,et al.  Optimal Deconvolution of Transcriptional Profiling Data Using Quadratic Programming with Application to Complex Clinical Blood Samples , 2011, PloS one.

[47]  Jayanta Debnath,et al.  Modelling glandular epithelial cancers in three-dimensional cultures , 2005, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[48]  B. Vanhaesebroeck,et al.  Activity of any class IA PI3K isoform can sustain cell proliferation and survival , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[49]  P. Lásló,et al.  Multilineage Transcriptional Priming and Determination of Alternate Hematopoietic Cell Fates , 2006, Cell.

[50]  J. Peccoud,et al.  Markovian Modeling of Gene-Product Synthesis , 1995 .

[51]  J. Derisi,et al.  Single-cell proteomic analysis of S. cerevisiae reveals the architecture of biological noise , 2006, Nature.

[52]  G. Doherty,et al.  Interferon Regulatory Factor Expression in Human Breast Cancer , 2001, Annals of surgery.

[53]  Irmtraud M. Meyer,et al.  The clonal and mutational evolution spectrum of primary triple-negative breast cancers , 2012, Nature.

[54]  Catalin C. Barbacioru,et al.  mRNA-Seq whole-transcriptome analysis of a single cell , 2009, Nature Methods.

[55]  Joachim Selbig,et al.  Biomarker discovery in heterogeneous tissue samples -taking the in-silico deconfounding approach , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

[56]  Mark M. Davis,et al.  Cell type–specific gene expression differences in complex tissues , 2010, Nature Methods.