Review



mouse olfactory bulb st data  (Spatial Transcriptomics Inc)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Spatial Transcriptomics Inc mouse olfactory bulb st data
    Analysis of <t>mouse</t> <t>olfactory</t> <t>bulb</t> <t>data.</t> a) H&E staining of the olfactory bulb (top) and the deconvolution results of all candidate methods displayed by the spatial scatter pie plot of cell‐type composition on each spatial location. The examined cell types were granule cells (GC), olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs), periglomerular cells (PGC), mitral/tufted cells (M‐TC), and external plexiform layer interneurons (EPL‐IN) b) Manual annotation of anatomic layers (top), including the granule cell layer (GCL), the mitral cell layer (MCL), the glomerular layer (GL), and the nerve layer (ONL), and the spatial domains of different deconvolution methods visualized by spatial scatters of specific domain types. c) Performance comparison between candidate deconvolution methods, including QR‐SIDE, STdeconvolve, CARDfree, RCTD, CARD, SPOTlight, and spatialDWLS in terms of NMI (left) and ARI (right). d) UMAP plots of gene expression for Topic 1, 2, 3 identified by QR‐SIDE. The color scheme of each topic domain was the same as in (b). e) The heatmap of normalized expression level for the top 10 DE genes for topic domain 1, 2, 3. f) The correlation between DE genes of identified domains and marker genes of each cell type. g) The mean expression level of an example marker gene list for QR‐SIDE, where Tyro3 was included as the interference marker gene of cell type GC. h) Left and middle panels: The estimated spot‐separable η scores of correct marker Penk and misclassified marker Tyro3 . Right panel: The line plots of mean η of all markers across all spatial spots and the RMSE between estimated cell‐type composition by varying the inclusion of top 3‐7 marker genes of each cell type as the input gene list and the deconvolution results using high‐quality marker genes (as shown in a).
    Mouse Olfactory Bulb St Data, supplied by Spatial Transcriptomics Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/mouse olfactory bulb st data/product/Spatial Transcriptomics Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    mouse olfactory bulb st data - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Robust Spatial Cell‐Type Deconvolution with Qualitative Reference for Spatial Transcriptomics"

    Article Title: Robust Spatial Cell‐Type Deconvolution with Qualitative Reference for Spatial Transcriptomics

    Journal: Small Methods

    doi: 10.1002/smtd.202401145

    Analysis of mouse olfactory bulb data. a) H&E staining of the olfactory bulb (top) and the deconvolution results of all candidate methods displayed by the spatial scatter pie plot of cell‐type composition on each spatial location. The examined cell types were granule cells (GC), olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs), periglomerular cells (PGC), mitral/tufted cells (M‐TC), and external plexiform layer interneurons (EPL‐IN) b) Manual annotation of anatomic layers (top), including the granule cell layer (GCL), the mitral cell layer (MCL), the glomerular layer (GL), and the nerve layer (ONL), and the spatial domains of different deconvolution methods visualized by spatial scatters of specific domain types. c) Performance comparison between candidate deconvolution methods, including QR‐SIDE, STdeconvolve, CARDfree, RCTD, CARD, SPOTlight, and spatialDWLS in terms of NMI (left) and ARI (right). d) UMAP plots of gene expression for Topic 1, 2, 3 identified by QR‐SIDE. The color scheme of each topic domain was the same as in (b). e) The heatmap of normalized expression level for the top 10 DE genes for topic domain 1, 2, 3. f) The correlation between DE genes of identified domains and marker genes of each cell type. g) The mean expression level of an example marker gene list for QR‐SIDE, where Tyro3 was included as the interference marker gene of cell type GC. h) Left and middle panels: The estimated spot‐separable η scores of correct marker Penk and misclassified marker Tyro3 . Right panel: The line plots of mean η of all markers across all spatial spots and the RMSE between estimated cell‐type composition by varying the inclusion of top 3‐7 marker genes of each cell type as the input gene list and the deconvolution results using high‐quality marker genes (as shown in a).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Analysis of mouse olfactory bulb data. a) H&E staining of the olfactory bulb (top) and the deconvolution results of all candidate methods displayed by the spatial scatter pie plot of cell‐type composition on each spatial location. The examined cell types were granule cells (GC), olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs), periglomerular cells (PGC), mitral/tufted cells (M‐TC), and external plexiform layer interneurons (EPL‐IN) b) Manual annotation of anatomic layers (top), including the granule cell layer (GCL), the mitral cell layer (MCL), the glomerular layer (GL), and the nerve layer (ONL), and the spatial domains of different deconvolution methods visualized by spatial scatters of specific domain types. c) Performance comparison between candidate deconvolution methods, including QR‐SIDE, STdeconvolve, CARDfree, RCTD, CARD, SPOTlight, and spatialDWLS in terms of NMI (left) and ARI (right). d) UMAP plots of gene expression for Topic 1, 2, 3 identified by QR‐SIDE. The color scheme of each topic domain was the same as in (b). e) The heatmap of normalized expression level for the top 10 DE genes for topic domain 1, 2, 3. f) The correlation between DE genes of identified domains and marker genes of each cell type. g) The mean expression level of an example marker gene list for QR‐SIDE, where Tyro3 was included as the interference marker gene of cell type GC. h) Left and middle panels: The estimated spot‐separable η scores of correct marker Penk and misclassified marker Tyro3 . Right panel: The line plots of mean η of all markers across all spatial spots and the RMSE between estimated cell‐type composition by varying the inclusion of top 3‐7 marker genes of each cell type as the input gene list and the deconvolution results using high‐quality marker genes (as shown in a).

    Techniques Used: Staining, Comparison, Gene Expression, Expressing, Marker



    Similar Products

    mouse olfactory bulb st data  (Spatial Transcriptomics Inc)
    90
    Spatial Transcriptomics Inc mouse olfactory bulb st data
    Analysis of <t>mouse</t> <t>olfactory</t> <t>bulb</t> <t>data.</t> a) H&E staining of the olfactory bulb (top) and the deconvolution results of all candidate methods displayed by the spatial scatter pie plot of cell‐type composition on each spatial location. The examined cell types were granule cells (GC), olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs), periglomerular cells (PGC), mitral/tufted cells (M‐TC), and external plexiform layer interneurons (EPL‐IN) b) Manual annotation of anatomic layers (top), including the granule cell layer (GCL), the mitral cell layer (MCL), the glomerular layer (GL), and the nerve layer (ONL), and the spatial domains of different deconvolution methods visualized by spatial scatters of specific domain types. c) Performance comparison between candidate deconvolution methods, including QR‐SIDE, STdeconvolve, CARDfree, RCTD, CARD, SPOTlight, and spatialDWLS in terms of NMI (left) and ARI (right). d) UMAP plots of gene expression for Topic 1, 2, 3 identified by QR‐SIDE. The color scheme of each topic domain was the same as in (b). e) The heatmap of normalized expression level for the top 10 DE genes for topic domain 1, 2, 3. f) The correlation between DE genes of identified domains and marker genes of each cell type. g) The mean expression level of an example marker gene list for QR‐SIDE, where Tyro3 was included as the interference marker gene of cell type GC. h) Left and middle panels: The estimated spot‐separable η scores of correct marker Penk and misclassified marker Tyro3 . Right panel: The line plots of mean η of all markers across all spatial spots and the RMSE between estimated cell‐type composition by varying the inclusion of top 3‐7 marker genes of each cell type as the input gene list and the deconvolution results using high‐quality marker genes (as shown in a).
    Mouse Olfactory Bulb St Data, supplied by Spatial Transcriptomics Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/mouse olfactory bulb st data/product/Spatial Transcriptomics Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    mouse olfactory bulb st data - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Analysis of mouse olfactory bulb data. a) H&E staining of the olfactory bulb (top) and the deconvolution results of all candidate methods displayed by the spatial scatter pie plot of cell‐type composition on each spatial location. The examined cell types were granule cells (GC), olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs), periglomerular cells (PGC), mitral/tufted cells (M‐TC), and external plexiform layer interneurons (EPL‐IN) b) Manual annotation of anatomic layers (top), including the granule cell layer (GCL), the mitral cell layer (MCL), the glomerular layer (GL), and the nerve layer (ONL), and the spatial domains of different deconvolution methods visualized by spatial scatters of specific domain types. c) Performance comparison between candidate deconvolution methods, including QR‐SIDE, STdeconvolve, CARDfree, RCTD, CARD, SPOTlight, and spatialDWLS in terms of NMI (left) and ARI (right). d) UMAP plots of gene expression for Topic 1, 2, 3 identified by QR‐SIDE. The color scheme of each topic domain was the same as in (b). e) The heatmap of normalized expression level for the top 10 DE genes for topic domain 1, 2, 3. f) The correlation between DE genes of identified domains and marker genes of each cell type. g) The mean expression level of an example marker gene list for QR‐SIDE, where Tyro3 was included as the interference marker gene of cell type GC. h) Left and middle panels: The estimated spot‐separable η scores of correct marker Penk and misclassified marker Tyro3 . Right panel: The line plots of mean η of all markers across all spatial spots and the RMSE between estimated cell‐type composition by varying the inclusion of top 3‐7 marker genes of each cell type as the input gene list and the deconvolution results using high‐quality marker genes (as shown in a).

    Journal: Small Methods

    Article Title: Robust Spatial Cell‐Type Deconvolution with Qualitative Reference for Spatial Transcriptomics

    doi: 10.1002/smtd.202401145

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Analysis of mouse olfactory bulb data. a) H&E staining of the olfactory bulb (top) and the deconvolution results of all candidate methods displayed by the spatial scatter pie plot of cell‐type composition on each spatial location. The examined cell types were granule cells (GC), olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs), periglomerular cells (PGC), mitral/tufted cells (M‐TC), and external plexiform layer interneurons (EPL‐IN) b) Manual annotation of anatomic layers (top), including the granule cell layer (GCL), the mitral cell layer (MCL), the glomerular layer (GL), and the nerve layer (ONL), and the spatial domains of different deconvolution methods visualized by spatial scatters of specific domain types. c) Performance comparison between candidate deconvolution methods, including QR‐SIDE, STdeconvolve, CARDfree, RCTD, CARD, SPOTlight, and spatialDWLS in terms of NMI (left) and ARI (right). d) UMAP plots of gene expression for Topic 1, 2, 3 identified by QR‐SIDE. The color scheme of each topic domain was the same as in (b). e) The heatmap of normalized expression level for the top 10 DE genes for topic domain 1, 2, 3. f) The correlation between DE genes of identified domains and marker genes of each cell type. g) The mean expression level of an example marker gene list for QR‐SIDE, where Tyro3 was included as the interference marker gene of cell type GC. h) Left and middle panels: The estimated spot‐separable η scores of correct marker Penk and misclassified marker Tyro3 . Right panel: The line plots of mean η of all markers across all spatial spots and the RMSE between estimated cell‐type composition by varying the inclusion of top 3‐7 marker genes of each cell type as the input gene list and the deconvolution results using high‐quality marker genes (as shown in a).

    Article Snippet: The mouse olfactory bulb ST data from Spatial Transcriptomics v1.0 technology was considered.

    Techniques: Staining, Comparison, Gene Expression, Expressing, Marker