PO.TB10.01 · 肿瘤生物学

肺腺癌从磨玻璃向实性转变过程中的空间轨迹与微环境重构

Spatial trajectories and niche rewiring from ground‑glass to solid transition in lung adenocarcinoma

海报缩略图:肺腺癌从磨玻璃向实性转变过程中的空间轨迹与微环境重构
编号 2264 展板 13 时间 4/20 09:00–12:00 区域 Section 33 主讲 Kwon Joong Na, MD
分会场 Tumorigenesis and Early Microenvironmental Trajectories
查看 PDF 下载 PDF 🔒 查看 / 下载完整 PDF 需登录并开通下载套餐 · 查看套餐 / 开通 AACR 官方页面

作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations

Kwon Joong Na, Hongyoon Choi, Jaemoon Koh, Taeyoung Yun, Jihyeon Park, Bubse Na, Samina Park, In Kyu Park, Chang Hyun Kang, Young Tae Kim

Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea, Republic of

摘要 Abstract

中文摘要
背景:磨玻璃结节(GGNs)常通过筛查被检出,然而其如何原位获得侵袭能力尚不清楚。我们探究了在GGN向实性转变过程中,上皮状态、基质结构和免疫通路如何重组。 方法:我们从三例已切除的I期肺腺癌(LUAD)的以GGN为主和以实性为主的区域中生成了配对的空间转录组(10x Visium,新鲜冷冻)。使用单细胞参照推断细胞组成和上皮状态(tS1-tS3)。我们量化了配体-受体(L-R)通讯,推断了通路活性(PROGENy;Hallmark),并在切片内构建了基于扩散的空间轨迹,以模拟从浸润前到浸润的连续过程。 结果:两例肿瘤趋同于上皮高、成纤维细胞低、髓系炎症的实性区域,而一例呈现基质主导的实性表型;髓系涌入在所有病例中均有出现。具有恶性潜能的上皮状态(tS2)在2/3的肿瘤中扩增(第三例大致持平),而良性样状态则局灶性消退。成纤维细胞程序一致表现为肌成纤维细胞富集,支持早期ECM硬化。T细胞谱系向耗竭偏移(CD8⁺;轻度Tfh),伴Treg不同程度增加,形成一个炎症但免疫抑制的微环境。空间L-R图谱突出显示补体-B细胞轴(C3-CR2/CD19)和ECM锚定信号(SDC4-TGM2、FN1-TNFRSF11B)的增强,以及NK/T细胞支持性相互作用(HLA-E-KLRD1;IL-7-IL7R)的收缩。通路评分证实了EGFR和缺氧的上调状态,伴糖酵解/脂肪酸程序增加、顶端连接和E2F程序减少——这与代谢应激下的增殖相符,而非不加选择的细胞周期加速。在一例跨越相邻正常-GGN-实性的病例中,空间轨迹捕捉到了正常与GGN之间早期的内皮/成纤维细胞丢失,随后是以tS2增加、肌成纤维细胞聚集以及单核细胞/DC向实性核心募集为标志的侵袭固化。 结论:配对空间转录组表明,GGN向实性的转变是由协调的上皮状态改变、基质肌成纤维细胞富集以及向耗竭偏移并伴髓系涌入的免疫重构共同构建而成。L-R和通路特征趋同于补体偏向、ECM锚定的信号,并伴NK/T细胞支持减弱,为GGN的风险分层提出了候选轴,需在更大队列中进行前瞻性验证。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Background Ground‑glass nodules (GGNs) are frequently detected by screening, yet how they acquire invasion in situ is unclear. We asked how epithelial states, stromal architecture, and immune circuits reorganize during the GGN‑to‑solid transition. Methods We generated paired spatial transcriptomes (10x Visium, fresh‑frozen) from GGN‑predominant and solid‑predominant regions of three resected stage I LUADs. Cell composition and epithelial states (tS1-tS3) were inferred using a single‑cell reference. We quantified ligand-receptor (L-R) communication, inferred pathway activities (PROGENy; Hallmark), and constructed diffusion‑based spatial trajectories within sections to model the preinvasive‑to‑invasive continuum. Results Two tumors converged on an epithelial‑high, fibroblast‑low, myeloid‑inflamed solid region, while one showed a stroma‑dominant solid phenotype; myeloid influx was shared across all cases. The malignant‑potential epithelial state (tS2) expanded in 2/3 tumors (the third was approximately flat), whereas benign‑like states receded focally. Fibroblast programs consistently showed myofibroblast enrichment, supporting early ECM stiffening. T‑cell lineages shifted toward exhaustion (CD8⁺; modest Tfh) with variable Treg increases, yielding an inflamed‑but‑immunosuppressed niche. Spatial L-R maps highlighted strengthening of complement-B‑cell axes (C3-CR2/CD19) and ECM‑anchored signals (SDC4-TGM2, FN1-TNFRSF11B), with contraction of NK/T‑cell‑supportive interactions (HLA‑E-KLRD1; IL‑7-IL7R). Pathway scores corroborated a state of EGFR and hypoxia upshift with glycolytic/fatty‑acid programs increased, apical junction and E2F programs reduced-compatible with proliferation under metabolic stress rather than indiscriminate cell‑cycle acceleration. In a case spanning adjacent normal-GGN-solid, spatial trajectories captured early endothelial/fibroblast loss between normal and GGN, followed by consolidation of invasion marked by tS2 gain, myofibroblast accumulation, and monocyte/DC recruitment toward the solid core. Conclusions Paired spatial transcriptomes indicate that the GGN‑to‑solid shift is assembled by coordinated epithelial state change, stromal myofibroblast enrichment, and immune rewiring toward exhaustion with myeloid influx. L-R and pathway profiles converge on complement‑biased, ECM‑anchored signaling with attenuated NK/T‑cell support, nominating candidate axes for risk stratification of GGNs and prospective validation in larger cohorts.
利益披露 Disclosure
K. Na, Portrai Stock. Inocras ). H. Choi, Portrai Stock. J. Koh, None.. T. Yun, None.. J. Park, None.. B. Na, None.. S. Park, None.. I. Park, None.. C. Kang, None.. Y. Kim, None.

← 返回 AACR 2026 检索