ArticleThe Journal of pathology2025
Assessing spatial sequencing and imaging approaches to capture the molecular and pathological heterogeneity of archived cancer tissues.
Article in The Journal of pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unraveling lncRNA diversity at a single cell resolution and in a spatial context across different cancer types.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Progressive fibrosis in human MASLD is associated with spatially linked transcriptomic signatures of metabolic reprogramming and senescence.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Article
- Spatial transcriptomics and histopathological analyses reveal potential biomarkers and immune features linked to recurrence in head and neck cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Integrating Spatial Omics and Deep Learning: Toward Predictive Models of Cardiomyocyte Differentiation Efficiency.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Long-term fixation impact on archived human nervous tissues for sequencing-based transcriptomics.Brain communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spatial transcriptomics (ST) offers enormous potential to decipher the biological and pathological heterogeneity in precious archival cancer tissues. Traditionally, these tissues have rarely been used and only examined at a low throughput, most commonly by histopathological staining. ST adds thousands of times as many molecular features to histopathological images, but critical technical issues and limitations require more assessment of how ST performs on fixed archival tissues. In this work, we addressed this in a cancer-heterogeneity pipeline, starting with an exploration of the whole transcriptome by two sequencing-based ST protocols capable of measuring coding and non-coding RNAs. We optimised the two protocols to work with challenging formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, derived from skin. We then assessed alternative imaging methods, including multiplex RNAScope single-molecule imaging and multiplex protein imaging (CODEX). We evaluated the methods' performance for tissues stored from 4 to 14 years ago, covering a range of RNA qualities, allowing us to assess variation. In addition to technical performance metrics, we determined the ability of these methods to quantify tumour heterogeneity. We integrated gene expression profiles with pathological information, charting a new molecular landscape on the pathologically defined tissue regions. Together, this work provides important and comprehensive experimental technical perspectives to consider the applications of ST in deciphering the cancer heterogeneity in archived tissues. © 2025 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.