Cited by 1,117Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 7 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

SpaGCN: Integrating gene expression, spatial location and histology to identify spatial domains and spatially variable genes by graph convolutional network

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Recent advances in spatially resolved transcriptomics (SRT) technologies have enabled comprehensive characterization of gene expression patterns in the context of tissue microenvironment. To elucidate spatial gene expression variation, we present SpaGCN, a graph convolutional network approach that integrates gene expression, spatial location and histology in SRT data analysis. Through graph convolution, SpaGCN aggregates gene expression of each spot from its neighboring spots, which enables the identification of spatial domains with coherent expression and histology. The subsequent domain guided differential expression (DE) analysis then detects genes with enriched expression patterns in the identified domains. Analyzing seven SRT datasets using SpaGCN, we show it can detect genes with much more enriched spatial expression patterns than competing methods. Furthermore, genes detected by SpaGCN are transferrable and can be utilized to study spatial variation of gene expression in other datasets. SpaGCN is computationally fast, platform independent, making it a desirable tool for diverse SRT studies.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

SpaGCN is a graph convolutional network method that integrates gene expression, spatial location, and histology to identify spatial domains and domain-enriched spatially variable genes (SVGs) or meta genes in spatial transcriptomics data. Across five datasets, it produced more spatially coherent domains and SVGs than K-means, Louvain, SPARK, and SpatialDE, and was computationally fast.

Key findings

  • In mouse olfactory bulb (16,218 genes, 262 spots), SpaGCN detected 60 SVGs; SpatialDE detected 67 (12 overlapping) and SPARK detected 772 (49 overlapping). SpaGCN SVGs had median Moran’s I 0.20 versus 0.18 for SPARK and 0.25 for SpatialDE, but were domain-specific.
  • In mouse posterior brain (3,353 spots, 31,053 genes), SpaGCN detected 523 SVGs versus 9,678 for SPARK and 12,676 for SpatialDE; median Moran’s I was 0.50 for SpaGCN versus 0.21 for SPARK and 0.16 for SpatialDE. SpaGCN completed spatial domain and SVG detection in less than one minute, versus ~13 minutes for SpatialDE and more than 18 hours for SPARK, using 1.3 GB memory versus >3.1 GB and >7.2 GB, respectively.
  • In LIBD human DLPFC slice 151673 (3,639 spots, 33,538 genes), SpaGCN achieved an ARI of 0.42 versus 0.24 for K-means and 0.33 for Louvain; it detected 61 SVGs, with 53 specific to domain 4. Median Moran’s I was 0.39 for SpaGCN versus 0.09 for SPARK and 0.08 for SpatialDE. Transferring 18 SpaGCN-selected genes to slice 151676 gave an ARI of 0.25, versus 0.07 for SpatialDE top 18 and 0.05 for SPARK top 18; 806 SpatialDE SVGs gave ARI 0.14 and 1,114 SPARK SVGs gave ARI 0.15.
  • In human primary pancreatic cancer (224 spots, 16,448 genes), SpaGCN detected 12 SVGs (3, 8, and 1 for domains 0, 1, and 2) and a KRT17 + MMP11 - SERPINA1 meta gene marked the cancer region; SPARK and SpatialDE detected 203 and 163 SVGs. In MERFISH mouse hypothalamus (5,665 cells, 161 genes), SpaGCN detected 19 SVGs including DGKK, ERMN, and SLN for domains 2, 3, and 7.

Methods

  • SpaGCN builds an undirected weighted graph from spatial coordinates and histology RGB-derived coordinates, with edge weights based on Euclidean distance and a characteristic length scale; it uses PCA top 50 components and a graph convolutional layer, followed by unsupervised iterative clustering initialized by Louvain.
  • For SVGs, SpaGCN performs domain-guided differential expression using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests between the target domain and neighboring domains, requiring FDR-adjusted p < 0.05, in-fraction > 80%, in/out fraction ratio > 1, and fold change > 1.5; meta genes are built iteratively from positive and negative genes when no single SVG marks a domain.
  • The method was evaluated on five public datasets—four sequencing-based and one MERFISH—and compared with K-means, Louvain, SPARK, and SpatialDE using ARI, Moran’s I, runtime, and memory.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section. Text-evident limitations include dependence on histology availability/quality and on user-set parameters such as the scaling factor, characteristic length scale, number of domains/resolution, and SVG filtering thresholds; for smFISH/MERFISH data without histology, the method must be adapted and neighbor contribution increased.
  • Text-evident: some domains lack single SVGs and require meta genes, neuronal layer differences can be small and difficult to distinguish, and the evaluation is limited to five datasets with comparisons focused on selected methods.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41592-021-01255-8

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

55 Own result · 20 Own interpretation · 14 No basis given · 3 Couldn’t confirm · 3 Own method · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Sources not found · 1 No full text of the sources · accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 13
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 40
47 of 47
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The difference of gene expression between different domains is mainly driven by cell type composition variation due to spatial variation of cell types in tissue.

    “Due to spatial variation of cell types in tissue, the difference of gene expression between different domains is mainly driven by cell type composition variation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The expression profile and biological function of a spot is heavily influenced by its neighboring spots.

    “The expression profile and biological function of a spot is heavily influenced by its neighboring spots.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cancer region in the histology image is darker in color than non-cancer regions, making it informative for clustering.

    “Since the cancer region in the histology image is darker in color than non-cancer regions, it is informative for clustering.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In MERFISH data, the captured tissue area is much smaller and fewer genes are measured, making it difficult to detect spatial domains because cells within such a small area are more similar to each other.

    “One important difference between MERFISH and sequencing-based spatial transcriptomics data is that the captured tissue area is much smaller and less genes are measured, making it difficult to detect spatial domains since the cells within such a small area are more similar to each other.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some genes may be expressed in multiple but disconnected domains.

    “We note that some genes may be expressed in multiple but disconnected domains.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,117

Metadata

Authors
Hu, J., Li, X., Coleman, K., Schroeder, A., Ma, N., Irwin, D. J., Lee, E. B., Shinohara, R. T., & Li, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Nankai University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Hu, Jian
  • Li, Mingyao
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2021-10-28
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
1342-1351
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W3108118546
Cited by
1,113
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 331 · 2025: 288 · 2024: 273 · 2023: 133 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 7
FWCI
33.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM125301)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Eye Institute (R01EY030192, R01EY031209)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL113147, R01HL150359)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
spatial transcriptomics, graph convolutional networks, spatial domain, spatially variable genes, spatial gene expression, tissue microenvironment
MeSH terms
Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex, Algorithms, Animals, Brain, Gene Expression Regulation, Genes, Humans, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Software, Visual Cortex, Cluster Analysis, Neural Networks, Computer, Computational Biology, Mice, Transcriptome, Spatial Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-20, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-20 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review