Cellular deconvolution with DeCovarT

A network-centric view of bulk mixtures

Bastien Chassagnol

MMG / LPSM / INSERM

Gregory Nuel
Etienne Becht
Anaïs Baudot

2026-08-08

Cellular deconvolution

DeCovarT: a network-centric approach to bulk mixtures


Bastien Chassagnol
MMG

Gregory Nuel
LPSM

Etienne Becht
INSERM

Anaïs Baudot
MMG

Slides: GitHub · Full screen after render: slides/index.html

Outline

  1. Why deconvolution?
  2. A review of deconvolution techniques
  3. DeCovarT: a network-centric approach
  4. Biological applications and perspectives
  5. Quiz

Why deconvolution?

Quantify components of biological systems

Bulk tissues mix cell populations. Autoimmunity and cancer change both composition and state of those populations (Schnell et al. 2020).

Three seesaws: healthy balance, cancer under-reaction, inflammatory over-reaction.
Figure 1: Immune balance as a seesaw between regulation and inflammation.

Schnell et al. (2020)

Immune balance (schematic)

Complementary schematic of Figure 1:

%%{init: {"theme": "sandstone"}}%%
flowchart TB
  H["Balanced<br/>Regulation ≈ Inflammation<br/>Healthy"]
  U["Under-reaction<br/>Regulation ≫ Inflammation<br/>Cancer risk"]
  O["Over-reaction<br/>Inflammation ≫ Regulation<br/>Autoimmunity"]
  H -->|"imbalance?"| U
  H -->|"imbalance?"| O
Figure 2: Healthy balance vs under- and over-reaction.

Schnell et al. (2020)

Holistic complexity

Genes cooperate in pathways; metabolites and cell populations interact in bio-molecular networks. Deconvolution alone is not enough — we need structure on the gene side as well (Schnell et al. 2020).

Seesaw diagram with transcriptome and cell-population inputs.
Figure 3: Holistic view: transcriptome and cell populations feed immune balance.

Schnell et al. (2020)

Why bulk is limited for biomarkers

Shoemaker et al. (2012): the same bulk fold-change can come from

  • Scenario A — activation within an existing cell type
  • Scenario B — arrival of a new cell population (Figure 5)
Scenario A diagram from the doctorants talk.
Figure 4: Scenario A: within-type activation.
Scenario B diagram from the doctorants talk.
Figure 5: Scenario B: new population.

Shoemaker et al. (2012)

Technical alternatives

Comparison of bulk RNA-seq and single-cell / spatial assays.
Figure 6: Bulk versus single-cell trade-offs.

Bulk RNA-seq

  • Cheaper, larger cohorts
  • Longitudinal studies
  • Aggregates heterogeneous signals

Single-cell / spatial

  • Resolve rare types & lineages
  • Costly, noisy, heavy compute
  • Complements bulk rather than replaces it

Deconvolution recovers cell-type proportions from bulk when single-cell is impractical at scale.

Review of techniques

The ecosystem of algorithms

Taxonomy after Shen-Orr & Gannett (2013) and reviews such as Avila Cobos et al. (2018), Gaspard-Boulinc et al. (2025):

  • Partial deconvolution — estimate proportions \(p\) given signature \(X\)
  • Complete deconvolution — jointly infer \(p\) and \(X\) (ill-posed without priors)

Granularity

Deconvolution targets vary:

  • Mixtures of cell populations (e.g. immune fractions)
  • Mixtures of tissues (e.g. tumour purity)
  • Mixtures of cell-cycle phases

Reference-based principle

Reference-based deconvolution schematic.
Figure 7: Signature \(X\), bulk \(y\), proportions \(p\).
  1. Purified cellular profiles (signature matrix \(X\))
  2. Bulk mixture \(y\)
  3. Estimate proportions \(p\) (often with simplex constraints)

Classic tools include DeconRNASeq (Gong and Szustakowski 2013), CIBERSORT (Newman et al. 2015), and EPIC (Racle et al. 2017).

Avila Cobos et al. (2018)

Signature-based families

Compact survey of common reference-based tools (Table 1):

Table 1: Selected reference-based deconvolution methods.

Regression

  • Quadratic programming (DeconRNASeq)
  • Robust / SVR (CIBERSORT, FARDEEP)
  • Weighted QP (EPIC, quanTIseq)

Probabilistic

  • Continuous: DSection, DeMix
  • Discrete: PERT, TEMT

DeCovarT

Global pipeline

Global DeCovarT analysis pipeline.
Figure 8: From references to biological exploitation.
  1. Collect / curate cell-type datasets
  2. Learn features & GRN structure
  3. DeCovarT estimation of \(p\)
  4. Biological exploitation

Avila Cobos et al. (2018)

Multivariate Gaussian convolution

Cell type \(j\): \(x_j \sim \mathcal{N}_G(\mu_j, \Sigma_j)\).

Bulk observation (Equation 1):

\[ y \mid p \;\sim\; \mathcal{N}_G\!\Bigl( \mu p,\; \sum_j p_j^{2}\,\Sigma_j \Bigr). \tag{1}\]

  • \(G\): number of genes (dimension of \(y\))
  • \(J\): number of cell types; \(p \in \Delta^{J-1}\)
  • \(\mu\): \(G \times J\) mean signature; \(\Sigma_j\): gene–gene covariance of type \(j\)

Covariance structure enters the likelihood — gene–gene dependence is first-class, not noise.

Gaussian mixture / convolution schematic from the talk.
Figure 9: Another view of the convolution principle.

Unit-simplex constraint

Proportions live on \(\Delta^{J-1}\). DeCovarT uses an unconstrained map \(\rho \mapsto p\) (additive logistic / soft-max) that is a \(C^{2}\)-diffeomorphism, then optimises with Marquardt–Levenberg.

Toy model (2 cells × 2 genes)

Bivariate convolutions make the geometry visible: entropy of \(p\), overlap of \(\Sigma_j\), and solver behaviour (DeconRNASeq vs DeCovarT). See Figure 10 and Figure 11.

Two-cell two-gene toy model.
Figure 10: Toy bivariate setup.
Comparison of estimators on the toy model.
Figure 11: Toy estimation results.

Package vignettes: synthetic scenarios and benchmark_bivariate_gaussian_convolutions().

Applications & perspectives

Sjögren’s disease

Transcriptomic patient clusters and IFN modules motivate composition-aware analysis of immune infiltration (Soret et al. 2021).

Sjögren disease transcriptomic stratification slide.
Figure 12: Sjögren patient stratification motivating deconvolution.

Soret et al. (2021)

DTOO / gastruloid perspectives

Digital twins and multimodal gastruloid maps need deconvolution across bulk, single-cell, and ATAC layers — composition + covariance again.

Spatial deconvolution (outlook)

Emerging toolkits mix (Gaspard-Boulinc et al. 2025):

  • Graph / optimal transport pairing of cells to spots
  • Bayesian count models (NB, Poisson–gamma, topic models)
  • Regression with simplex / robust / ensemble constraints

Gaspard-Boulinc et al. (2025)

Perspectives for DeCovarT

  • Rare / unknown cell content and spillover
  • Multi-omics and spatio-temporal resolution
  • Hierarchical ontologies (coarse vs fine labels)
  • Compositional statistics on \(p\)

Quiz

What does reference-based deconvolution estimate?

  • Gene regulatory network topology only
  • Cell-type proportions \(p\) given a signature \(X\)
  • Single-cell UMAP embeddings
  • Batch-correction factors alone

Which statement about DeCovarT is true?

  • It ignores gene–gene covariance
  • It models bulk as a Gaussian convolution with covariance \(\sum_j p_j^2\Sigma_j\)
  • It only works on DNA methylation
  • It requires spatial coordinates for every cell

Scenario A vs B (Shoemaker 2012)

A bulk gene increases. Scenario B means:

  • The same cell type up-regulates the gene
  • A new cell population arrives in the mixture
  • Sequencing depth doubled
  • The gene was a spike-in control

Acknowledgements

Thanks

Supervision & co-authors

  • Anaïs Baudot
  • Gregory Nuel
  • Etienne Becht
  • Marielle Péré

Collaborators

  • SysBioMed / MMG colleagues
  • Doctorants seminar organisers

Take-away messages

  • Bulk mixes cell types; deconvolution recovers proportions \(p\).
  • Reference-based methods need a signature \(X\); unsupervised methods need strong priors (Table 1).
  • DeCovarT models gene–gene covariance via multivariate Gaussian convolutions (Equation 1).
  • Always validate with aliquots (bulk + FACS / scRNA-seq) when possible.

References

Avila Cobos, Francisco, Jo Vandesompele, Pieter Mestdagh, and Katleen De Preter. 2018. ‘Computational Deconvolution of Transcriptomics Data from Mixed Cell Populations’. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 34. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty019.
Gaspard-Boulinc, Lucie C., Luca Gortana, Thomas Walter, Emmanuel Barillot, and Florence M. G. Cavalli. 2025. ‘Cell-Type Deconvolution Methods for Spatial Transcriptomics’. Nature Reviews Genetics 26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-025-00845-y.
Gong, Ting, and Joseph D. Szustakowski. 2013. DeconRNASeq: A Statistical Framework for Deconvolution of Heterogeneous Tissue Samples Based on mRNA-Seq Data’. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 29. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt090.
Newman, Aaron, Chih Liu, Michael Green, et al. 2015. ‘Robust Enumeration of Cell Subsets from Tissue Expression Profiles’. Nature Methods 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3337.
Racle, Julien, Kaat de Jonge, Petra Baumgaertner, Daniel E Speiser, and David Gfeller. 2017. ‘Simultaneous Enumeration of Cancer and Immune Cell Types from Bulk Tumor Gene Expression Data’. eLife 6. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.26476.
Schnell, Alexandra, Lloyd Bod, Asaf Madi, and Vijay K. Kuchroo. 2020. ‘The Yin and Yang of Co-Inhibitory Receptors: Toward Anti-Tumor Immunity Without Autoimmunity’. Cell Research 30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41422-020-0277-x.
Shoemaker, Jason E., Tiago JS Lopes, Samik Ghosh, Yukiko Matsuoka, Yoshihiro Kawaoka, and Hiroaki Kitano. 2012. CTen: A Web-Based Platform for Identifying Enriched Cell Types from Heterogeneous Microarray Data’. BMC Genomics 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-460.
Soret, Perrine, Christelle Le Dantec, Emiko Desvaux, et al. 2021. ‘A New Molecular Classification to Drive Precision Treatment Strategies in Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome’. Nature Communications 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23949-4.