Robin Browaeys & Chananchida Sang-aram 2023-10-02
In this vignette, you can learn how to perform a basic NicheNet analysis on a Seurat (v3-v5) object containing single-cell expression data. The steps of this vignette can also be adapted for other single-cell or bulk frameworks.
Assuming you have captured the changes in gene expression resulting from your cell-cell communication (CCC) process of interest, a NicheNet analysis can help you to generate hypotheses about the CCC process. Specifically, NicheNet can predict 1) which ligands from the microenvironment or cell population(s) (“sender/niche”) are most likely to affect target gene expression in an interacting cell population (“receiver/target”) and 2) which specific target genes are affected by which of these predicted ligands.
To perform a NicheNet analysis, three features are extracted from the input data: the potential ligands, the gene set of interest, and the background gene set. This vignette will extract each feature as described in this flowchart:
As example expression data of interacting cells, we will use mouse NICHE-seq data to explore intercellular communication in the T cell area in the inguinal lymph node before and 72 hours after lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) infection (Medaglia et al. 2017). We will focus on CD8 T cells as the receiver population, and as this dataset contains two conditions (before and after LCMV infection), the differentially expressed genes between these two conditions in CD8 T cells will be used as our gene set of interest. We will then prioritize which ligands from the microenvironment (sender-agnostic approach) and from specific immune cell populations like monocytes, dendritic cells, NK cells, B cells, and CD4 T cells (sender-focused approach) can regulate and induce these observed gene expression changes.
Please make sure you understand the different steps described in this vignette before performing a real NicheNet analysis on your data. There are also wrapper functions that perform the same steps as in this vignette in Perform NicheNet analysis starting from a Seurat object. However, in that case users will not be able to adapt specific steps of the pipeline to make them more appropriate for their data.
The ligand-target matrix and the Seurat object of the processed NICHE-seq single-cell data can be downloaded from Zenodo.
library(nichenetr) # Please update to v2.0.4
library(Seurat)
library(SeuratObject)
library(tidyverse)We processed and aggregated the original dataset by using the Seurat
alignment pipeline. As we created this object using Seurat v3, it has to
be updated with UpdateSeuratObject. Note that genes should be named by
their official mouse/human gene symbol.
seuratObj <- readRDS(url("https://zenodo.org/record/3531889/files/seuratObj.rds"))
seuratObj@meta.data %>% head()
## nGene nUMI orig.ident aggregate res.0.6 celltype nCount_RNA nFeature_RNA
## W380370 880 1611 LN_SS SS 1 CD8 T 1607 876
## W380372 541 891 LN_SS SS 0 CD4 T 885 536
## W380374 742 1229 LN_SS SS 0 CD4 T 1223 737
## W380378 847 1546 LN_SS SS 1 CD8 T 1537 838
## W380379 839 1606 LN_SS SS 0 CD4 T 1603 836
## W380381 517 844 LN_SS SS 0 CD4 T 840 513
# For older Seurat objects, you may need to run this
seuratObj <- UpdateSeuratObject(seuratObj)Additionally, if your expression data has the older gene symbols, you may want to use our alias conversion function to avoid the loss of gene names.
seuratObj <- alias_to_symbol_seurat(seuratObj, "mouse")Visualize which cell populations are present: CD4 T cells (including regulatory T cells), CD8 T cells, B cells, NK cells, dendritic cells (DCs) and inflammatory monocytes.
# Note that the number of cells of some cell types is very low and should preferably be higher for a real application
seuratObj@meta.data$celltype %>% table()
## .
## B CD4 T CD8 T DC Mono NK Treg
## 382 2562 1645 18 90 131 199
DimPlot(seuratObj, reduction = "tsne")
Visualize the data to see to which condition cells belong. The metadata column that denotes the condition (steady-state or after LCMV infection) is here called ‘aggregate’.
seuratObj@meta.data$aggregate %>% table()
## .
## LCMV SS
## 3886 1141
DimPlot(seuratObj, reduction = "tsne", group.by = "aggregate")
The ligand-target prior model, ligand-receptor network, and weighted integrated networks are needed for this vignette. The ligand-target prior model is a matrix describing the potential that a ligand may regulate a target gene, and it is used to run the ligand activity analysis. The ligand-receptor network contains information on potential ligand-receptor bindings, and it is used to identify potential ligands. Finally, the weighted ligand-receptor network contains weights representing the potential that a ligand will bind to a receptor, and it is used for visualization.
organism <- "mouse"
if(organism == "human"){
lr_network <- readRDS(url("https://zenodo.org/record/7074291/files/lr_network_human_21122021.rds"))
ligand_target_matrix <- readRDS(url("https://zenodo.org/record/7074291/files/ligand_target_matrix_nsga2r_final.rds"))
weighted_networks <- readRDS(url("https://zenodo.org/record/7074291/files/weighted_networks_nsga2r_final.rds"))
} else if(organism == "mouse"){
lr_network <- readRDS(url("https://zenodo.org/record/7074291/files/lr_network_mouse_21122021.rds"))
ligand_target_matrix <- readRDS(url("https://zenodo.org/record/7074291/files/ligand_target_matrix_nsga2r_final_mouse.rds"))
weighted_networks <- readRDS(url("https://zenodo.org/record/7074291/files/weighted_networks_nsga2r_final_mouse.rds"))
}
lr_network <- lr_network %>% distinct(from, to)
head(lr_network)
## # A tibble: 6 × 2
## from to
## <chr> <chr>
## 1 2300002M23Rik Ddr1
## 2 2610528A11Rik Gpr15
## 3 9530003J23Rik Itgal
## 4 a Atrn
## 5 a F11r
## 6 a Mc1r
ligand_target_matrix[1:5,1:5] # target genes in rows, ligands in columns
## 2300002M23Rik 2610528A11Rik 9530003J23Rik a A2m
## 0610005C13Rik 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 1.311297e-05 0.000000e+00 1.390053e-05
## 0610009B22Rik 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 1.269301e-05 0.000000e+00 1.345536e-05
## 0610009L18Rik 8.872902e-05 4.977197e-05 2.581909e-04 7.570125e-05 9.802264e-05
## 0610010F05Rik 2.194046e-03 1.111556e-03 3.142374e-03 1.631658e-03 2.585820e-03
## 0610010K14Rik 2.271606e-03 9.360769e-04 3.546140e-03 1.697713e-03 2.632082e-03
head(weighted_networks$lr_sig) # interactions and their weights in the ligand-receptor + signaling network
## # A tibble: 6 × 3
## from to weight
## <chr> <chr> <dbl>
## 1 0610010F05Rik App 0.110
## 2 0610010F05Rik Cat 0.0673
## 3 0610010F05Rik H1f2 0.0660
## 4 0610010F05Rik Lrrc49 0.0829
## 5 0610010F05Rik Nicn1 0.0864
## 6 0610010F05Rik Srpk1 0.123
head(weighted_networks$gr) # interactions and their weights in the gene regulatory network
## # A tibble: 6 × 3
## from to weight
## <chr> <chr> <dbl>
## 1 0610010K14Rik 0610010K14Rik 0.121
## 2 0610010K14Rik 2510039O18Rik 0.121
## 3 0610010K14Rik 2610021A01Rik 0.0256
## 4 0610010K14Rik 9130401M01Rik 0.0263
## 5 0610010K14Rik Alg1 0.127
## 6 0610010K14Rik Alox12 0.128In contrary to NicheNet v1, we now recommend users to run both the “sender-agnostic” approach and “sender-focused” approach. These approaches only affect the list of potential ligands that are considered for prioritization. As described in the flowchart above, we do not define any sender populations in the ‘sender agnostic’ approach but consider all ligands for which its cognate receptor is expressed in the receiver population. The sender-focused approach will then filter the list of ligands to ones where the ligands are expressed in the sender cell population(s).
We first define a “receiver/target” cell population and determine which genes are expressed. Here, we will consider a gene to be expressed if it is expressed in at least 5% of cells (by default this is set to 10%). The receiver cell population can only consist of one cell type, so in case of multiple receiver populations, you will have to rerun the vignette separately for each one. We will only look at CD8 T cells in this vignette.
receiver = "CD8 T"
expressed_genes_receiver <- get_expressed_genes(receiver, seuratObj, pct = 0.05)Get a list of all receptors available in the ligand-receptor network, and define expressed receptors as genes that are in the ligand-receptor network and expressed in the receiver. Then, define the potential ligands as all ligands whose cognate receptors are expressed.
all_receptors <- unique(lr_network$to)
expressed_receptors <- intersect(all_receptors, expressed_genes_receiver)
potential_ligands <- lr_network %>% filter(to %in% expressed_receptors) %>% pull(from) %>% unique()For the sender-focused approach, define sender cell types (CD4 T, Treg, Mono, NK, B, and DC) and expressed genes in all sender populations. (Although we pool all ligands from all sender cell types together in this step, later on during the interpretation of the output, we will check which sender cell type expresses which ligand.) Then, filter potential ligands to those that are expressed in sender cells. Note that autocrine signaling can also be considered if we also include CD8 T cells as a sender.
sender_celltypes <- c("CD4 T", "Treg", "Mono", "NK", "B", "DC")
# Use lapply to get the expressed genes of every sender cell type separately here
list_expressed_genes_sender <- sender_celltypes %>% unique() %>% lapply(get_expressed_genes, seuratObj, 0.05)
expressed_genes_sender <- list_expressed_genes_sender %>% unlist() %>% unique()
potential_ligands_focused <- intersect(potential_ligands, expressed_genes_sender)
# Also check
length(expressed_genes_sender)
## [1] 8492
length(potential_ligands)
## [1] 483
length(potential_ligands_focused)
## [1] 127The gene set of interest are genes within the receiver cell type that are likely to be influenced by ligands from the CCC event. In typical case-control studies like this one, we use the differentially expressed (DE) genes between the two conditions in the receiver cell type, assuming that the observed DE pattern is a result of the CCC event (i.e., LCMV infection). The condition of interest is thus ‘LCMV’, whereas the reference/steady-state condition is ‘SS’. The condition can be extracted from the metadata column ‘aggregate’. The method to calculate the differential expression is here the standard Seurat Wilcoxon test, but this can be changed if necessary.
condition_oi <- "LCMV"
condition_reference <- "SS"
seurat_obj_receiver <- subset(seuratObj, idents = receiver)
DE_table_receiver <- FindMarkers(object = seurat_obj_receiver,
ident.1 = condition_oi, ident.2 = condition_reference,
group.by = "aggregate",
min.pct = 0.05) %>% rownames_to_column("gene")
geneset_oi <- DE_table_receiver %>% filter(p_val_adj <= 0.05 & abs(avg_log2FC) >= 0.25) %>% pull(gene)
geneset_oi <- geneset_oi %>% .[. %in% rownames(ligand_target_matrix)]All expressed genes in the receiver cell population (that are also in the ligand-target matrix) is defined as the ‘background set’ for our ligand prioritization procedure in the next step. It’s also important to check that the number of background genes is a ‘reasonable’ number, generally between 5000-10000, and sufficiently larger than our gene set of interest.
background_expressed_genes <- expressed_genes_receiver %>% .[. %in% rownames(ligand_target_matrix)]
length(background_expressed_genes)
## [1] 3476
length(geneset_oi)
## [1] 260This is the main step of NicheNet where the potential ligands are ranked based on the presence of their target genes in the gene set of interest (compared to the background set of genes). In this case, we prioritize ligands that induce the antiviral response in CD8 T cells.
Ligands are ranked based on the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) between a ligand’s target predictions and the observed transcriptional response. Although other metrics like the AUROC and pearson correlation coefficient are also computed, we demonstrated in our validation study that the AUPR was the most informative measure to define ligand activity (this was the Pearson correlation for v1). The vignette on how we performed the validation can be found at Evaluation of NicheNet’s ligand-target predictions.
We will first show the results of the sender-agnostic approach.
ligand_activities <- predict_ligand_activities(geneset = geneset_oi,
background_expressed_genes = background_expressed_genes,
ligand_target_matrix = ligand_target_matrix,
potential_ligands = potential_ligands)
ligand_activities <- ligand_activities %>% arrange(-aupr_corrected) %>% mutate(rank = rank(desc(aupr_corrected)))
ligand_activities
## # A tibble: 483 × 6
## test_ligand auroc aupr aupr_corrected pearson rank
## <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 Ifna1 0.714 0.433 0.358 0.498 1
## 2 Ifnb1 0.711 0.401 0.327 0.433 2
## 3 Ifnl3 0.683 0.392 0.317 0.433 3
## 4 Il27 0.682 0.391 0.316 0.445 4
## 5 Ifng 0.732 0.382 0.307 0.451 5
## 6 Ifnk 0.671 0.282 0.207 0.272 6
## 7 Ifne 0.667 0.279 0.204 0.289 7
## 8 Ebi3 0.666 0.264 0.189 0.256 8
## 9 Ifnl2 0.658 0.252 0.177 0.246 9
## 10 Ifna2 0.669 0.247 0.172 0.205 10
## # ℹ 473 more rowsThe performance metrics indicate that the 30 top-ranked ligands can predict the viral response reasonably, implying that the ranking of the ligands might be accurate. However, it is possible that for some gene sets, the target gene prediction performance of the top-ranked ligands would not be much better than random prediction. In that case, prioritization of ligands will be less trustworthy.
We will use the top 30 ligands to predict active target genes and construct an active ligand-receptor network. However, the choice of looking only at the 30 top-ranked ligands for further biological interpretation is based on biological intuition and is quite arbitrary. Therefore, users can decide to continue the analysis with a different number of ligands. We recommend to check the selected cutoff by looking at the distribution of the ligand activity values. Here, we show the ligand activity histogram (the score for the 30th ligand is indicated via the dashed line).
p_hist_lig_activity <- ggplot(ligand_activities, aes(x=aupr_corrected)) +
geom_histogram(color="black", fill="darkorange") +
geom_vline(aes(xintercept=min(ligand_activities %>% top_n(30, aupr_corrected) %>% pull(aupr_corrected))),
color="red", linetype="dashed", size=1) +
labs(x="ligand activity (PCC)", y = "# ligands") +
theme_classic()
p_hist_lig_activity
best_upstream_ligands <- ligand_activities %>% top_n(30, aupr_corrected) %>% arrange(-aupr_corrected) %>% pull(test_ligand)We can also visualize the ligand activity measure (AUPR) of these top-ranked ligands:
vis_ligand_aupr <- ligand_activities %>% filter(test_ligand %in% best_upstream_ligands) %>%
column_to_rownames("test_ligand") %>% select(aupr_corrected) %>% arrange(aupr_corrected) %>% as.matrix(ncol = 1)
(make_heatmap_ggplot(vis_ligand_aupr,
"Prioritized ligands", "Ligand activity",
legend_title = "AUPR", color = "darkorange") +
theme(axis.text.x.top = element_blank())) 
Active target genes are defined as genes in the gene set of interest
that have the highest regulatory potential for each top-ranked ligand.
These top targets of each ligand are based on the prior model. The
function get_weighted_ligand_target_links will return genes that are in
the gene set of interest and are the top n targets of a ligand
(default: n = 200, but there are too many target genes here so we only
considered the top 100).
active_ligand_target_links_df <- best_upstream_ligands %>%
lapply(get_weighted_ligand_target_links,
geneset = geneset_oi,
ligand_target_matrix = ligand_target_matrix,
n = 100) %>%
bind_rows() %>% drop_na()
nrow(active_ligand_target_links_df)
## [1] 637
head(active_ligand_target_links_df)
## # A tibble: 6 × 3
## ligand target weight
## <chr> <chr> <dbl>
## 1 Ifna1 Ddx58 0.247
## 2 Ifna1 Eif2ak2 0.246
## 3 Ifna1 Gbp2 0.192
## 4 Ifna1 Gbp7 0.195
## 5 Ifna1 H2-D1 0.206
## 6 Ifna1 H2-K1 0.206For visualization purposes, the ligand-target prior model was adapted by
setting a regulatory potential score to 0 if their score was below a
predefined cutoff (default: 0.25, or the 25th percentile) across all
scores between the top-ranked ligands and their top n targets. We
recommend users to test several cutoff values for the best
visualization, as lowering or increasing the cutoff will result in a
denser or sparser heatmap, respectively.
active_ligand_target_links <- prepare_ligand_target_visualization(
ligand_target_df = active_ligand_target_links_df,
ligand_target_matrix = ligand_target_matrix,
cutoff = 0.33)
nrow(active_ligand_target_links)
## [1] 86
head(active_ligand_target_links)
## Ifna13 Ifna2 Ifna6 Ifna15 Ifna7 Ifna5 Ifnab Ifna9 Ifna11 Ifna12 Ifna16 Ifna4 Ifna14 Ptprc Tnf Il36g Il10 Il21 Osm
## Irf1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.27692301 0.07400782 0.07722567 0.1342983 0.16962803
## Ddx60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11281871 0.00000000 0.05478472 0.0000000 0.08116101
## Parp14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07003101 0.06895448 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.08011593
## Ddx58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24433255 0.06891134 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.08862524
## Parp12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.19298997 0.06687691 0.05621734 0.0000000 0.07252823
## Tap1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25076038 0.07099514 0.00000000 0.0280451 0.15842935
## Il27 Ifna1 Ifnb1 Ifng Ifnk Ifne Lrtm2 Ifnl3 Ebi3 Ifnl2
## Irf1 0.3393635 0.2493108 0.25825704 0.2864755 0.04430047 0.04063913 0.03483987 0.10021371 0.11317944 0.07408235
## Ddx60 0.1596771 0.1218225 0.13569911 0.1171453 0.02629924 0.02771157 0.00000000 0.08217529 0.04882999 0.03746171
## Parp14 0.1563348 0.1269487 0.07891102 0.1142710 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.07074981 0.04568410 0.03135479
## Ddx58 0.2265024 0.2467722 0.21469112 0.2480807 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.07125327 0.04024212 0.02705719
## Parp12 0.1580405 0.1844883 0.14626411 0.1851128 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
## Tap1 0.1949126 0.1937607 0.16257249 0.2563000 0.00000000 0.02717588 0.00000000 0.08010402 0.04710621 0.03769675
order_ligands <- intersect(best_upstream_ligands, colnames(active_ligand_target_links)) %>% rev()
order_targets <- active_ligand_target_links_df$target %>% unique() %>% intersect(rownames(active_ligand_target_links))
vis_ligand_target <- t(active_ligand_target_links[order_targets,order_ligands])
make_heatmap_ggplot(vis_ligand_target, "Prioritized ligands", "Predicted target genes",
color = "purple", legend_title = "Regulatory potential") +
scale_fill_gradient2(low = "whitesmoke", high = "purple")
The rows of the heatmap are ordered based on the rankings of the ligands, and the columns are ordered alphabetically. We see a lot of interferons in the top ligands, which biologically make sense as we are looking at response to a viral infection.
Note that not all ligands from the top 30 are present in the heatmap. The left-out ligands are ligands that don’t have target genes with high enough regulatory potential scores. Therefore, they did not survive the used cutoffs. To include them, you can be less stringent in the used cutoffs or increase the number of target genes considered. Additionally, if you would consider more than the top 200 targets based on prior information, you will infer more, but less confident, ligand-target links; by considering less than 200 targets, you will be more stringent.
Similar to above, we identify which receptors have the highest interaction potential with the top-ranked ligands.
ligand_receptor_links_df <- get_weighted_ligand_receptor_links(
best_upstream_ligands, expressed_receptors,
lr_network, weighted_networks$lr_sig) Then, we create a heatmap for ligand-receptor interactions. Here, both
the ligands and receptors are ordered by hierarchical clustering You can
choose to order only ligands or receptors hierarachically (with
order_hclust = ligands or receptors, respectively) or not at all
(none), in which case the ligands are ordered based on their rankings,
and the receptors are ordered alphabetically..
vis_ligand_receptor_network <- prepare_ligand_receptor_visualization(
ligand_receptor_links_df,
best_upstream_ligands,
order_hclust = "both")
(make_heatmap_ggplot(t(vis_ligand_receptor_network),
y_name = "Ligands", x_name = "Receptors",
color = "mediumvioletred", legend_title = "Prior interaction potential"))
To perform the sender-focused approach, simply subset the ligand activities to only contain expressed ligands from all populations (calculated in Step 1). We can then perform target gene and receptor inference as above.
ligand_activities_all <- ligand_activities
best_upstream_ligands_all <- best_upstream_ligands
ligand_activities <- ligand_activities %>% filter(test_ligand %in% potential_ligands_focused)
best_upstream_ligands <- ligand_activities %>% top_n(30, aupr_corrected) %>% arrange(-aupr_corrected) %>%
pull(test_ligand) %>% unique()ligand_aupr_matrix <- ligand_activities %>% filter(test_ligand %in% best_upstream_ligands) %>%
column_to_rownames("test_ligand") %>% select(aupr_corrected) %>% arrange(aupr_corrected)
vis_ligand_aupr <- as.matrix(ligand_aupr_matrix, ncol = 1)
p_ligand_aupr <- make_heatmap_ggplot(vis_ligand_aupr,
"Prioritized ligands", "Ligand activity",
legend_title = "AUPR", color = "darkorange") +
theme(axis.text.x.top = element_blank())
p_ligand_aupr
# Target gene plot
active_ligand_target_links_df <- best_upstream_ligands %>%
lapply(get_weighted_ligand_target_links,
geneset = geneset_oi,
ligand_target_matrix = ligand_target_matrix,
n = 100) %>%
bind_rows() %>% drop_na()
active_ligand_target_links <- prepare_ligand_target_visualization(
ligand_target_df = active_ligand_target_links_df,
ligand_target_matrix = ligand_target_matrix,
cutoff = 0.33)
order_ligands <- intersect(best_upstream_ligands, colnames(active_ligand_target_links)) %>% rev()
order_targets <- active_ligand_target_links_df$target %>% unique() %>% intersect(rownames(active_ligand_target_links))
vis_ligand_target <- t(active_ligand_target_links[order_targets,order_ligands])
p_ligand_target <- make_heatmap_ggplot(vis_ligand_target, "Prioritized ligands", "Predicted target genes",
color = "purple", legend_title = "Regulatory potential") +
scale_fill_gradient2(low = "whitesmoke", high = "purple")
p_ligand_target
# Receptor plot
ligand_receptor_links_df <- get_weighted_ligand_receptor_links(
best_upstream_ligands, expressed_receptors,
lr_network, weighted_networks$lr_sig)
vis_ligand_receptor_network <- prepare_ligand_receptor_visualization(
ligand_receptor_links_df,
best_upstream_ligands,
order_hclust = "both")
p_ligand_receptor <- make_heatmap_ggplot(t(vis_ligand_receptor_network),
y_name = "Ligands", x_name = "Receptors",
color = "mediumvioletred", legend_title = "Prior interaction potential")
p_ligand_receptor
Here, we instead observe that the top-ranked ligands consist of many H2 genes (which encode MHC-II proteins), and not IFN genes as in the sender-agnostic approach. This is because IFN genes are not expressed by the sender cell populations, and it was already filtered out during preprocessing for being too lowly expressed.
best_upstream_ligands_all %in% rownames(seuratObj) %>% table()
## .
## FALSE TRUE
## 23 7For the sender-focused approach, we can also investigate further on which sender cell populations are potentially the true sender of these ligands. First, we can simply check which sender cell population expresses which of these top-ranked ligands.
# Dotplot of sender-focused approach
p_dotplot <- DotPlot(subset(seuratObj, celltype %in% sender_celltypes),
features = rev(best_upstream_ligands), cols = "RdYlBu") +
coord_flip() +
scale_y_discrete(position = "right")
p_dotplot
As you can see, most of the top-ranked ligands seem to be mainly expressed by dendritic cells and monocytes.
Next, we can also check upregulation of ligands in sender cells by computing the log-fold change between the two conditions. This ligand differential expression is not used for prioritization and ranking of the ligands (the ranking is only determined based on enrichment of target genes among DE genes in the receiver, CD8T cells), but it can add a useful extra layer of information next to the ligand activities. This is of course only possible in some cases, such as case-control studies.
celltype_order <- levels(Idents(seuratObj))
# Use this if cell type labels are the identities of your Seurat object
# if not: indicate the celltype_col properly
DE_table_top_ligands <- lapply(
celltype_order[celltype_order %in% sender_celltypes],
get_lfc_celltype,
seurat_obj = seuratObj,
condition_colname = "aggregate",
condition_oi = condition_oi,
condition_reference = condition_reference,
celltype_col = "celltype",
min.pct = 0, logfc.threshold = 0,
features = best_upstream_ligands
)
DE_table_top_ligands <- DE_table_top_ligands %>% reduce(., full_join) %>%
column_to_rownames("gene")
vis_ligand_lfc <- as.matrix(DE_table_top_ligands[rev(best_upstream_ligands), ])
p_lfc <- make_threecolor_heatmap_ggplot(vis_ligand_lfc,
"Prioritized ligands", "LFC in Sender",
low_color = "midnightblue", mid_color = "white",
mid = median(vis_ligand_lfc), high_color = "red",
legend_title = "LFC")
p_lfc
We see that most of the top-ranked ligands also seem to be upregulated themselves in monocytes after viral infection. This is nice additional “evidence” that these ligands might indeed be important.
Finally, you can also compare rankings between the sender-agnostic and sender-focused approach. Here, the red sections of the left bar plot indicates which ligands in the sender-agnostic approach are filtered out in the sender-focused approach because they are not expressed.
(make_line_plot(ligand_activities = ligand_activities_all,
potential_ligands = potential_ligands_focused) +
theme(plot.title = element_text(size=11, hjust=0.1, margin=margin(0, 0, -5, 0))))
Finally, we can make a combined plot containing heatmap of ligand
activities, ligand expression, ligand log-fold change and the target
genes of the top-ranked ligands. As mentioned earlier, sometimes ligands
do not appear in the ligand-target heatmap because they don’t have
target genes with high enough regulatory potential scores. In this case,
CCl22 is present in other plots (ranked 25th) but is missing in the
rightmost plot. If users wish for these plots to be consistent, they may
use the variable order_ligands defined when creating the ligand-target
heatmap to subset other plots instead of best_upstream_ligands.
figures_without_legend <- cowplot::plot_grid(
p_ligand_aupr + theme(legend.position = "none"),
p_dotplot + theme(legend.position = "none",
axis.ticks = element_blank(),
axis.title.y = element_blank(),
axis.title.x = element_text(size = 12),
axis.text.y = element_text(size = 9),
axis.text.x = element_text(size = 9, angle = 90, hjust = 0)) +
ylab("Expression in Sender"),
p_lfc + theme(legend.position = "none",
axis.title.y = element_blank()),
p_ligand_target + theme(legend.position = "none",
axis.title.y = element_blank()),
align = "hv",
nrow = 1,
rel_widths = c(ncol(vis_ligand_aupr)+6, ncol(vis_ligand_lfc)+7, ncol(vis_ligand_lfc)+8, ncol(vis_ligand_target)))
legends <- cowplot::plot_grid(
ggpubr::as_ggplot(ggpubr::get_legend(p_ligand_aupr)),
ggpubr::as_ggplot(ggpubr::get_legend(p_dotplot)),
ggpubr::as_ggplot(ggpubr::get_legend(p_lfc)),
ggpubr::as_ggplot(ggpubr::get_legend(p_ligand_target)),
nrow = 1,
align = "h", rel_widths = c(1.5, 1, 1, 1))
combined_plot <- cowplot::plot_grid(figures_without_legend, legends, rel_heights = c(10,5), nrow = 2, align = "hv")
combined_plot
As another follow-up analysis, you can infer possible signaling paths
between ligands and targets of interest. You can read how to do this in
the following vignette Inferring ligand-to-target signaling
paths:vignette("ligand_target_signaling_path", package="nichenetr").
Another follow-up analysis is getting a “tangible” measure of how well
top-ranked ligands predict the gene set of interest and assess which
genes of the gene set can be predicted well. You can read how to do this
in the following vignette Assess how well top-ranked ligands can
predict a gene set of
interest:vignette("target_prediction_evaluation_geneset", package="nichenetr").
In case you want to visualize ligand-target links between multiple
interacting cells, you can make an appealing circos plot as shown in
vignette Circos plot visualization to show active ligand-target links
between interacting
cells:vignette("circos", package="nichenetr").
sessionInfo()
## R version 4.3.2 (2023-10-31)
## Platform: x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu (64-bit)
## Running under: CentOS Stream 8
##
## Matrix products: default
## BLAS/LAPACK: /usr/lib64/libopenblaso-r0.3.15.so; LAPACK version 3.9.0
##
## locale:
## [1] LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C LC_TIME=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_MONETARY=en_US.UTF-8
## [6] LC_MESSAGES=en_US.UTF-8 LC_PAPER=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NAME=C LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C
## [11] LC_MEASUREMENT=en_US.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C
##
## time zone: Asia/Bangkok
## tzcode source: system (glibc)
##
## attached base packages:
## [1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
##
## other attached packages:
## [1] forcats_1.0.0 stringr_1.5.0 dplyr_1.1.4 purrr_1.0.2 readr_2.1.2 tidyr_1.3.0 tibble_3.2.1
## [8] ggplot2_3.4.4 tidyverse_1.3.1 SeuratObject_5.0.1 Seurat_4.4.0 nichenetr_2.0.4
##
## loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
## [1] fs_1.6.3 matrixStats_1.2.0 spatstat.sparse_3.0-3 bitops_1.0-7 devtools_2.4.3 lubridate_1.9.3
## [7] httr_1.4.7 RColorBrewer_1.1-3 doParallel_1.0.17 tools_4.3.2 sctransform_0.4.0 backports_1.4.1
## [13] utf8_1.2.4 R6_2.5.1 lazyeval_0.2.2 uwot_0.1.16 GetoptLong_1.0.5 withr_2.5.2
## [19] sp_2.1-2 gridExtra_2.3 fdrtool_1.2.17 progressr_0.14.0 cli_3.6.2 spatstat.explore_3.2-1
## [25] labeling_0.4.3 spatstat.data_3.0-3 randomForest_4.7-1.1 proxy_0.4-27 ggridges_0.5.5 pbapply_1.7-2
## [31] foreign_0.8-85 sessioninfo_1.2.2 parallelly_1.36.0 limma_3.56.2 readxl_1.4.3 rstudioapi_0.15.0
## [37] visNetwork_2.1.2 generics_0.1.3 shape_1.4.6 ica_1.0-3 spatstat.random_3.2-2 car_3.1-2
## [43] Matrix_1.6-4 fansi_1.0.6 S4Vectors_0.38.1 abind_1.4-5 lifecycle_1.0.4 yaml_2.3.8
## [49] carData_3.0-5 recipes_1.0.7 Rtsne_0.17 grid_4.3.2 promises_1.2.1 crayon_1.5.2
## [55] miniUI_0.1.1.1 lattice_0.21-9 haven_2.4.3 cowplot_1.1.2 pillar_1.9.0 knitr_1.45
## [61] ComplexHeatmap_2.16.0 rjson_0.2.21 future.apply_1.11.0 codetools_0.2-19 leiden_0.3.9 glue_1.6.2
## [67] remotes_2.4.2 data.table_1.14.10 vctrs_0.6.5 png_0.1-8 spam_2.10-0 cellranger_1.1.0
## [73] gtable_0.3.4 assertthat_0.2.1 cachem_1.0.8 gower_1.0.1 xfun_0.41 mime_0.12
## [79] prodlim_2023.08.28 survival_3.5-7 timeDate_4032.109 iterators_1.0.14 hardhat_1.3.0 lava_1.7.3
## [85] DiagrammeR_1.0.10 ellipsis_0.3.2 fitdistrplus_1.1-11 ROCR_1.0-11 ipred_0.9-14 nlme_3.1-163
## [91] usethis_2.2.2 RcppAnnoy_0.0.21 irlba_2.3.5.1 KernSmooth_2.23-22 rpart_4.1.21 colorspace_2.1-0
## [97] BiocGenerics_0.46.0 DBI_1.1.3 Hmisc_5.1-0 nnet_7.3-19 tidyselect_1.2.0 compiler_4.3.2
## [103] rvest_1.0.2 htmlTable_2.4.1 xml2_1.3.6 plotly_4.10.0 shadowtext_0.1.2 checkmate_2.3.1
## [109] scales_1.3.0 caTools_1.18.2 lmtest_0.9-40 digest_0.6.33 goftest_1.2-3 spatstat.utils_3.0-4
## [115] rmarkdown_2.11 htmltools_0.5.7 pkgconfig_2.0.3 base64enc_0.1-3 highr_0.10 dbplyr_2.1.1
## [121] fastmap_1.1.1 rlang_1.1.2 GlobalOptions_0.1.2 htmlwidgets_1.6.2 shiny_1.7.1 farver_2.1.1
## [127] zoo_1.8-12 jsonlite_1.8.8 ModelMetrics_1.2.2.2 magrittr_2.0.3 Formula_1.2-5 dotCall64_1.1-1
## [133] patchwork_1.1.3 munsell_0.5.0 Rcpp_1.0.11 ggnewscale_0.4.9 reticulate_1.34.0 stringi_1.7.6
## [139] pROC_1.18.5 MASS_7.3-60 pkgbuild_1.4.3 plyr_1.8.9 parallel_4.3.2 listenv_0.9.0
## [145] ggrepel_0.9.4 deldir_2.0-2 splines_4.3.2 tensor_1.5 hms_1.1.3 circlize_0.4.15
## [151] igraph_1.2.11 ggpubr_0.6.0 spatstat.geom_3.2-7 ggsignif_0.6.4 pkgload_1.3.3 reshape2_1.4.4
## [157] stats4_4.3.2 reprex_2.0.1 evaluate_0.23 modelr_0.1.8 tzdb_0.4.0 foreach_1.5.2
## [163] tweenr_2.0.2 httpuv_1.6.13 RANN_2.6.1 polyclip_1.10-6 future_1.33.0 clue_0.3-64
## [169] scattermore_1.2 ggforce_0.4.1 broom_0.7.12 xtable_1.8-4 e1071_1.7-14 rstatix_0.7.2
## [175] later_1.3.2 viridisLite_0.4.2 class_7.3-22 memoise_2.0.1 IRanges_2.34.1 cluster_2.1.4
## [181] timechange_0.2.0 globals_0.16.2 caret_6.0-94Medaglia, Chiara, Amir Giladi, Liat Stoler-Barak, Marco De Giovanni, Tomer Meir Salame, Adi Biram, Eyal David, et al. 2017. “Spatial Reconstruction of Immune Niches by Combining Photoactivatable Reporters and scRNA-Seq.” Science, December, eaao4277. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao4277.