% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Rademacher:302142,
author = {A. Rademacher$^*$ and A. Huseynov$^*$ and M.
Bortolomeazzi$^*$ and S. J. Wille$^*$ and S. Schumacher$^*$
and P. Sant$^*$ and D. Keitel$^*$ and K. Okonechnikov$^*$
and D. R. Ghasemi$^*$ and K. W. Pajtler$^*$ and J.-P.
Mallm$^*$ and K. Rippe$^*$},
title = {{C}omparison of spatial transcriptomics technologies using
tumor cryosections.},
journal = {Genome biology},
volume = {26},
number = {1},
issn = {1465-6906},
address = {London},
publisher = {BioMed Central},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-01260},
pages = {176},
year = {2025},
note = {#EA:B066#LA:W192#LA:B066#},
abstract = {Spatial transcriptomics technologies are revolutionizing
our understanding of intra-tumor heterogeneity and the tumor
microenvironment by revealing single-cell molecular profiles
within their spatial tissue context. The rapid development
of spatial transcriptomics methods, each with unique
characteristics, makes it challenging to select the most
suitable technology for specific research objectives. Here,
we compare four imaging-based approaches-RNAscope HiPlex,
Molecular Cartography, Merscope, and Xenium-alongside
Visium, a sequencing-based method. These technologies were
employed to study cryosections of medulloblastoma with
extensive nodularity (MBEN), a tumor chosen for its distinct
microanatomical features.Our analysis reveals that automated
imaging-based spatial transcriptomics methods are
well-suited to delineate the intricate MBEN microanatomy and
capture cell-type-specific transcriptome profiles. We devise
approaches to compare the sensitivity and specificity of
different methods, along with their unique attributes, to
guide method selection based on the research objective.
Furthermore, we demonstrate how reimaging slides after the
spatial transcriptomics analysis can significantly improve
cell segmentation accuracy and integrate additional
transcript and protein readouts, expanding the analytical
possibilities and depth of insight.This study underscores
important distinctions between spatial transcriptomics
technologies and offers a framework for evaluating their
performance. Our findings support informed decisions
regarding methods and outline strategies to improve the
resolution and scope of spatial transcriptomic analyses,
ultimately advancing spatial transcriptomics applications in
solid tumor research.},
keywords = {MERFISH (Other) / Medulloblastoma (Other) / Merscope
(Other) / Molecular Cartography (Other) / RNAscope (Other) /
Spatial transcriptomics (Other) / Visium (Other) / Xenium
(Other)},
cin = {B066 / W192 / B062 / HD01},
ddc = {570},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)B066-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)W192-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)B062-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331},
pnm = {312 - Funktionelle und strukturelle Genomforschung
(POF4-312)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-312},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:40542418},
pmc = {pmc:PMC12180266},
doi = {10.1186/s13059-025-03624-4},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/302142},
}