Generating Quantitative Cell Identity Labels with Marker Enrichment Modeling (MEM)

Multiplexed single‐cell experimental techniques like mass cytometry measure 40 or more features and enable deep characterization of well‐known and novel cell populations. However, traditional data analysis techniques rely extensively on human experts or prior knowledge, and novel machine learning algorithms may generate unexpected population groupings. Marker enrichment modeling (MEM) creates quantitative identity labels based on features enriched in a population relative to a reference. While developed for cell type analysis, MEM labels can be generated for a wide range of multidimensional data types, and MEM works effectively with output from expert analysis and diverse machine learning algorithms. MEM is implemented as an R package and includes three steps: (1) calculation of MEM values that quantify each feature's relative enrichment in the population, (2) reporting of MEM labels as a heatmap or as a text label, and (3) quantification of MEM label similarity between populations. The protocols here show MEM analysis using datasets from immunology and oncology. These MEM implementations provide a way to characterize population identity and novelty in the context of computational and expert analyses. © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[1]  J. Sosman,et al.  Myelodysplastic Syndrome Revealed by Systems Immunology in a Melanoma Patient Undergoing Anti–PD-1 Therapy , 2016, Cancer Immunology Research.

[2]  Y. Saeys,et al.  Computational flow cytometry: helping to make sense of high-dimensional immunology data , 2016, Nature Reviews Immunology.

[3]  J. Irish,et al.  Characterizing Phenotypes and Signaling Networks of Single Human Cells by Mass Cytometry. , 2015, Methods in molecular biology.

[4]  E. Fredlund,et al.  Mass Cytometry and Topological Data Analysis Reveal Immune Parameters Associated with Complications after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation. , 2017, Cell reports.

[5]  A. Salim,et al.  Phenotyping the Immune Response to Trauma: A Multiparametric Systems Immunology Approach* , 2017, Critical care medicine.

[6]  Nikesh Kotecha,et al.  Web‐Based Analysis and Publication of Flow Cytometry Experiments , 2010, Current protocols in cytometry.

[7]  Mark D. Robinson,et al.  Comparison of Clustering Methods for High-Dimensional Single-Cell Flow and Mass Cytometry Data , 2016, bioRxiv.

[8]  Kirsten E Diggins,et al.  Characterizing cell subsets in heterogeneous tissues using marker enrichment modeling , 2016, Nature Methods.

[9]  E. Newell,et al.  Mass cytometry: blessed with the curse of dimensionality , 2016, Nature Immunology.

[10]  Kirsten E Diggins,et al.  Methods for discovery and characterization of cell subsets in high dimensional mass cytometry data. , 2015, Methods.

[11]  Greg Finak,et al.  Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques , 2013, Nature Methods.

[12]  Sean C. Bendall,et al.  viSNE enables visualization of high dimensional single-cell data and reveals phenotypic heterogeneity of leukemia , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[13]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  An immune clock of human pregnancy , 2017, Science Immunology.

[14]  Thomas Nickles Methods of Discovery , 1996 .

[15]  Dana Pe'er,et al.  PhenoGraph and viSNE facilitate the identification of abnormal T‐cell populations in routine clinical flow cytometric data , 2018, Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry.

[16]  Sean C. Bendall,et al.  Data-Driven Phenotypic Dissection of AML Reveals Progenitor-like Cells that Correlate with Prognosis , 2015, Cell.

[17]  John C. Marioni,et al.  Testing for differential abundance in mass cytometry data , 2017, Nature Methods.

[18]  Gourab Mukherjee,et al.  Mass Cytometric Analysis of HIV Entry, Replication, and Remodeling in Tissue CD4+ T Cells. , 2017, Cell reports.

[19]  Sean C. Bendall,et al.  Normalization of mass cytometry data with bead standards , 2013, Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology.

[20]  O. Ornatsky,et al.  Mass cytometry: technique for real time single cell multitarget immunoassay based on inductively coupled plasma time-of-flight mass spectrometry. , 2009, Analytical chemistry.

[21]  G. Nolan,et al.  Mass Cytometry: Single Cells, Many Features , 2016, Cell.

[22]  Dana Pe’er,et al.  Distinct Cellular Mechanisms Underlie Anti-CTLA-4 and Anti-PD-1 Checkpoint Blockade , 2017, Cell.

[23]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Automated identification of stratifying signatures in cellular subpopulations , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Bo Wang,et al.  Visualization and analysis of single-cell RNA-seq data by kernel-based similarity learning , 2016, Nature Methods.

[25]  Piet Demeester,et al.  FlowSOM: Using self‐organizing maps for visualization and interpretation of cytometry data , 2015, Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology.

[26]  Mark M. Davis,et al.  Automatic Classification of Cellular Expression by Nonlinear Stochastic Embedding (ACCENSE) , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.