Skip to contents

Scope

Material moved out of the Nature Methods Article appendix to keep the main manuscript within editorial length. Notation matches the article Methods section and MuSiC-style mean references (Wang et al. 2019).

Notation

Symbol Role
g=1,\ldots,G genes
j=1,\ldots,J cell types
i=1,\ldots,N samples (subjects); independence across i
\boldsymbol{y}=(y_{gi})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{G\times N} bulk; column \boldsymbol{y}_{\cdot i}
\boldsymbol{\mu}=(\mu_{gj})\in\mathbb{R}^{G\times J} mean signature; column \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\cdot j}
\boldsymbol{p}=(p_{ji})\in\,]0,1[^{J\times N} proportions; column \boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i}

Dot notation: \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\cdot j} is the j-th column of \boldsymbol{\mu}; \boldsymbol{y}_{g\cdot} would be the g-th row. Classical texts often write the design matrix as \boldsymbol{X}; here the fixed design is the mean signature \boldsymbol{\mu}, as in MuSiC cross-subject means.

Ideal noiseless model for sample i:

\boldsymbol{y}_{\cdot i}=\boldsymbol{\mu}\,\boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i}, \qquad y_{gi}=\sum_{j=1}^{J}\mu_{gj}p_{ji}. \tag{1}

With G>J and \operatorname{rank}(\boldsymbol{\mu})=J, the system is overdetermined (Abbas et al. 2009); uniqueness in the square full-rank case follows from the Rouché–Capelli theorem (Shafarevich and Remizov 2013).

Ordinary least squares

With additive residual \epsilon_{gi}, OLS minimises squared error for each sample (independently):

\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_{\cdot i}^{\mathrm{OLS}} \equiv \arg\min_{\boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i}} \bigl\|\boldsymbol{y}_{\cdot i}-\boldsymbol{\mu}\,\boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i}\bigr\|_{2}^{2} = \arg\min_{\boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i}} \sum_{g=1}^{G} \Bigl(y_{gi}-\sum_{j=1}^{J}\mu_{gj}p_{ji}\Bigr)^{2}. \tag{2}

When \boldsymbol{\mu}^{\top}\boldsymbol{\mu} is invertible, the normal equations give

\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_{\cdot i}^{\mathrm{OLS}} = \bigl(\boldsymbol{\mu}^{\top}\boldsymbol{\mu}\bigr)^{-1} \boldsymbol{\mu}^{\top}\boldsymbol{y}_{\cdot i}. \tag{3}

Existence of this inverse requires full column rank J (no cell-type profile is an exact linear combination of the others; parent/child lineages that are collinear cannot both be estimated).

Homoscedastic Gaussian noise and MLE

Under the classical linear model (Article Fig.~DAG panel a),

y_{gi}=\sum_{j=1}^{J}\mu_{gj}p_{ji}+\epsilon_{gi}, \qquad \epsilon_{gi}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{i}^{2}), \tag{4}

i.e. y_{gi}\sim\mathcal{N}\bigl(\sum_{j}\mu_{gj}p_{ji},\,\sigma_{i}^{2}\bigr) with fixed (exogenous) \boldsymbol{\mu}. Then the MLE for \boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i} coincides with Equation 3.

Gauss–Markov assumptions (sketch)

Under weak exogeneity of \boldsymbol{\mu}, homoscedasticity \operatorname{Var}(\epsilon_{gi})=\sigma_{i}^{2} for all g, zero mean \mathbb{E}(\epsilon_{gi})=0, and uncorrelated residuals across genes, the OLS estimator is the BLUE (best linear unbiased estimator). With i.i.d. Gaussian errors the sample log-likelihood for sample i is (up to constants)

\ell(\boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i},\sigma_{i}\,|\,\boldsymbol{y}_{\cdot i},\boldsymbol{\mu}) = -G\log\sigma_{i} -\frac{1}{2\sigma_{i}^{2}} \sum_{g=1}^{G} \Bigl(y_{gi}-\sum_{j=1}^{J}\mu_{gj}p_{ji}\Bigr)^{2},

so maximising \ell in \boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i} recovers Equation 2. The residual variance MLE is \hat\sigma_{i}^{2}=G^{-1}\sum_{g}\hat\epsilon_{gi}^{2}. Independence across samples i=1,\ldots,N is the modelling assumption used throughout DeCovarT; microarray literature sometimes questions gene-wise independence (Efron 2009).

What DeCovarT changes

DeCovarT replaces gene-wise scalar noise with a multivariate convolution: latent \boldsymbol{x}_{\cdot j}\sim\mathcal{N}_{G}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\cdot j}, \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{j}), and \boldsymbol{y}_{\cdot i}\,|\,\boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i} \sim\mathcal{N}_{G}\bigl(\boldsymbol{\mu}\,\boldsymbol{p}_{\cdot i}, \sum_{j}p_{ji}^{2}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{j}\bigr), with precision \boldsymbol{\Theta}_{j}=\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{j}^{-1} (typically from gLasso). See the article Methods and softmax / ALR derivatives.

Abbas, Alexander R., Kristen Wolslegel, Dhaya Seshasayee, Zora Modrusan, and Hilary F. Clark. 2009. ‘Deconvolution of Blood Microarray Data Identifies Cellular Activation Patterns in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus’. PloS One 4. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006098.
Efron, Bradley. 2009. ‘Are a Set of Microarrays Independent of Each Other?’ The Annals of Applied Statistics 3. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-aoas236.
Shafarevich, Igor R., and Alexey O. Remizov. 2013. ‘Linear Equations. In Linear Algebra and Geometry. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30994-6_1.
Wang, Xuran, Jihwan Park, Katalin Susztak, Nancy R. Zhang, and Mingyao Li. 2019. ‘Bulk Tissue Cell Type Deconvolution with Multi-Subject Single-Cell Expression Reference’. Nature Communications 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08023-x.