Standard pre-processing and quality control of the integrated scRNA-seq data. The study workflow is presented in Fig. 1A. The standard pre-processing and rigorous quality control of scRNA-seq data integrated by studies are available (Supplementary Fig. 1). The number of genes, percentage of reads that map to the mitochondrial genome, and percentage of canine Ensemble genes detected in each study are shown (Supplementary Fig. 1A). Mitochondrial genes were not identified in BAL and lung groups (Supplementary Fig. 1B). Representative top 10 highest variable features among a total of 3,000 features that exhibit high cell-to-cell variation in the integrated scRNA-seq dataset are shown (Supplementary Fig. 1B). Principal components of 20 showing strong enrichment of features with low P values were selected based on the JackStraw (Supplementary Fig. 1C) and Elbow (Supplementary Fig. 1D) plots. Following potential doublet exclusion (Supplementary Fig. 1E), 69,035 single cells were obtained from PBMC (GSE144730, n = 20,078), peripheral blood TCR αβ T cells (GSE218355, n = 19,796), lung (GSE183300, n = 3,694), BAL (E-MTAB-9265, n = 4,240), BAL (E-MTAB-9623, n = 16,171), and TNBC (GSE142184, n = 5,056) (Supplementary Fig. 1F).
Identification of the major single-cell clusters by scRNA-seq
Following scRNA-seq data integration, a total of 45 clusters were identified in our master Seurat object (Fig. 1B). We assessed the clustering performance by identifying the major cell types and found a clear separation of CD45+ (or PTPRC+) leukocytes, CD4+ T, CD8+ T (or CD8A+), myeloid (LYZ+), epithelial cells (EPCAM+ and/or COL1A2+), and lung (BMP1+) populations (Figs. 1C-1D). Out of the top 20 DEGs to define the major immune and non-immune subsets, representative genes are presented on the heatmap (Fig. 1E). Functionally unique immune subsets from PBMC, αβ T, and BAL groups were further defined by various canonical markers and genes derived from previous studies (Fig. 1F and Supplementary Fig. 2). Unbiased cell type recognition was also used to define distinct clusters, supporting our clustering performance (Supplementary Fig. 3).
A total of 16 clusters of CD3+ T cell were identified, which mainly consisted of single-positive CD4+ or CD8+ cells, as well as a few double-positive (clusters 11 and 25) and double-negative (clusters 7 and 22, largely derived from BAL groups) subpopulations (Supplementary Fig. 2A). CD4+ T cells were further classified into 5 transcriptionally unique subpopulations, including LEF1+SELL+CCR7+ naïve (clusters 0 and 2), CXCR3high pre-effector (cluster 8), GATA3+ Th2-like pre-effector (cluster 9), CCR4highCXCR4high effector memory (cluster 17), FOXP3+ regulatory T cells (Treg) (cluster 31), and uncharacterized (cluster 38). Pre-effector CD4+ T cells were defined by the increasing tendency of HOPX expression – a marker for pre-effector T cells destined for subsequent effector differentiation 36. A total of 5 CD8+ T clusters were identified. Genes encoding killer cell lectin-like receptors, such as KLRG1 and KLRB1, and cytotoxicity, such as GZMA, PRF1, and NCR3, were highly expressed in clusters 14 and 26, suggesting cytotoxic CD8+ T cells (Supplementary Fig. 2A). In addition, cluster 26 specifically expressed FCER1G, a marker of an innate-like phenotype 37. Cluster 24 resembled an exhausted progenitor phenotype based on CD7, TOX, and to some extent TCF7, but not CD27 expression. Cluster 35 showed high expression of genes associated with T cell activation, such as CD69, JUND, and KLF6, suggesting activated CD8+ T cells. Cluster 30 expressed HOPX, but less expression of cytotoxicity-related genes, thus considered pre-effector type. Cluster 18 was characterized by high CCL4, CCL5, and S100A4 expression, suggesting a migratory phenotype. Meanwhile, only a very small number of immune cells, such as gamma delta T cells, and natural killer (NK) cells, were identified based on unbiased cell type annotation, but not assigned to a single independent cluster (Supplementary Fig. 3).
Myeloid cells that were defined by LYZ expression (Supplementary Fig. 2B) were distinguishably separated on the tSNE plot by the expression of CSF3R and CD163 – the classic M1 and M2 macrophage polarization markers, respectively (Fig. 1G). Myeloid clusters expressing CSF3R were ITGB2high monocytes (clusters 3, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 20), mainly derived from peripheral blood (Supplementary Fig. 3B). Myeloid clusters expressing CD163 were mainly CD68high macrophages (clusters 1, 4, 19, 21, and 39), largely derived from BAL. Cluster 20 was further defined by IFN-related monocytes based on the high expression of genes associated with interferon signaling pathways, such as ISG15, MX1, and MX2. We also identified CD83+CD86+ITGAX+ dendritic cells (DC) (cluster 23), FSCN1+ DC (cluster 41), and CD177+ neutrophils (cluster 40).
B cells (cluster 34) and plasmablasts (clusters 28 and 33) specifically expressed MS4A1 and IRF4, respectively (Supplementary Figs. 2A, 3A-3B). Single cells derived from lung were not immune cells but highly expressed BMP1 gene (Fig. 1D, Supplementary Fig. 2C). Single cells from the TNBC group showed specific expression of epithelial cell markers, such as COL1A2, KRT14, CA2, and SPP1 (Supplementary Fig. 2C). Meanwhile, some immune and TNBC cells were assigned to the same clusters (29, 36, and 43), perhaps due to a similar global structure of RNA expression across single cells. Taken together, our integrated analysis successfully identified major distinct subsets of immune and TNBC cells at the single-cell level in dogs.
Subsets of cancer cells have a distinct immune-suppressive phenotype
Clinical trials have revealed the existence of an immune suppressive TiME within multiple types of canine cancers 8,9,38,39. Whether canine TNBCs have an immune suppressive TiME is still unknown. We performed GSEA using various gene sets associated with immune-associated pathways (Fig. 2). Overall, we identified two distinct patterns of gene set enrichment. First, PBMC was preferentially enriched with inflammatory gene sets, such as interferon signaling, M1 macrophage, proinflammatory, and leukocyte-mediated immunity (Fig. 2A, red boxed). Especially, αβ T cells within the PBMC showed marked enrichment of T cell-specific gene signatures, such as Treg and terminal T cell differentiation. Second, there was preferential enrichment of immune suppressive gene sets within TNBCs, such as those related to TGF-β, TNF-α, anergy, anti-inflammatory, M2 macrophage, and exhaustion (Fig. 2A, blue boxed). Among them, the enrichment pattern of anti-inflammatory and M2 macrophage was particularly specific to TNBC, compared to other groups (Fig. 2B). TNBCs were also enriched with gene sets associated with alternative metabolic pathways, oxidative stress, and importantly canine gene sets (Fig. 2C), showing the reliability of GSEA implemented in this study. Consistent with previous scRNA-seq findings in dogs 27, BAL affected by idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis contained single-cell clusters that were highly enriched with the M2 macrophage gene set (Figs. 2A-2B). Meanwhile, lung cells showed only sporadic enrichment patterns of a few gene sets, such as TGF-β and anergy (Figs. 2A-2B). There was no noticeable difference in the enrichment pattern between healthy and atopic dermatitis conditions of PBMC.
Taken together, GSEA confirmed that TNBC contributes to immune suppressive TiME in dogs, providing a rationale for further analysis with a focus on identifying specific TBNC clusters that might have led to the distinct immune-suppressive phenotype.
Identification and characterization of cancer cell subsets within TNBCs
To scrutinize functionally unique cancer cell subpopulations, we performed sub-clustering of all cancer cells and defined a total of 11 sub-clusters (Fig. 3A). Each cluster was clearly separated in the tSNE plot, demonstrating prominent intratumoral heterogeneity and distinct global structure of transcriptomes across clusters (Supplementary Fig. 4). Representative markers used to define each cluster are available (Fig. 3B, Supplementary Figs. 4A-4B, and Supplementary Table 1). Genes encoding oncolytic vaccinia viral proteins, such as A12L and A7L, were specifically expressed in cluster 4, indicative of viral infection. Expression of genes associated with immune suppression, such as SPP1 and HMGA1, was mainly identified in clusters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Clusters 0 and 1 were characterized by specific expressions of SFRP2 and COL2A1, respectively. DDIT4 – which has been reported to confer resistance canine TNBC against viral infection 24 – was expressed in clusters 0, 1, 8, and 9.
We next performed functional enrichment analysis to investigate cancer cell subsets that can potentially contribute to immune suppression. Interestingly, GSEA identified clusters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 that were preferentially enriched with gene sets associated with immune suppression, such as anti-inflammatory, M2 macrophage, anergy, IL-18, TNF-α, and TGF-β (Figs. 3C, blue boxed, 3D, and Supplementary Fig. 4C). Interestingly, enrichment with an anti-inflammatory signature tended to increase in virus-infected clusters relative to non-viral infected cancer cell clusters (Fig. 3D). Among them, clusters 2 and 6 showed simultaneous enrichment of anti-inflammatory and M2 macrophage gene sets, indicative of potential immune-suppressive cancer cells (Fig. 3E). KEGG analysis using cluster markers revealed that cluster 2 was significantly associated with extracellular matrix-receptor interaction (Supplementary Fig. 4D). Cluster 6 was significantly associated with blood vessel development and cell migration (Supplementary Fig. 4D). These enrichment patterns were not associated with cell cycle alteration (Fig. 3E). Viral infection tended to arrest cell cycle progression (Supplementary Fig. 4E). Based on our GSEA and expression analyses, we classified cancer cells (Fig. 3G) into virus-susceptible, virus-resistant, and immune-modulatory – which was originally defined as bystander cancer cells in a previous study 24 (Fig. 3F). During virus infection, bystander cancer cells can change their behavior, potentially favoring immune evasion 40. The increasing tendency of anti-inflammatory enrichment in virus-infected, particularly immune-modulatory cancer cells, might imply genes that can play a key role in shaping an immune suppressive TiME. Among genes belonging to the immune suppressive signatures, we identified 40 DEGs across cancer cell subsets related to different viral infectious status (Fig. 3H, Supplementary Table 2, and Supplementary Fig. 4F). Overall, these genes were significantly enriched with many biological processes, particularly angiogenesis and leukocyte chemotaxis (Fig. 3I, Supplementary Figs. 4F-4G, and Supplementary Table 3). In support of this, VEGFA that belonged to these GO terms, significantly increased in virus-infected cancer cell clusters, compared to non-infected clusters (Fig. 3J and Supplementary Fig. 4G). Interestingly, VEGFC, which is associated with immune suppression during canine mammary cancer development 41, was also significantly upregulated in a subset of cancer cell population (Supplementary Fig. 4G). Other potential immune modulatory candidate genes, such as HSD11B1, LIF, PTGS2, GADD45B, and JAG1, were present (Fig. 3J).
Identification and characterization of cell-to-cell interaction between cancer cells and PBMCs
Tumor-immune cell interaction – a hallmark of cancer immunology – plays a critical role in T cell exhaustion within the TiME, leading to ineffective cancer immunotherapy. As a potential mechanism by which cancer cells induce the exhaustion stage of tumor-infiltrating T cells, we hypothesize that peripheral T cells interact with cancer cells via distinct ligand-receptor pairs. To decipher coordinated tumor-immune interactions, single cell clusters from cancer cells and PBMC groups were subject to CellChat analysis (Supplementary Fig. 5A). While analyzing the interactome, we found two major patterns of cell-cell interaction. First, there were distinct subsets of cancer cells (clusters 13, 27, and 32) that strongly sent signals to other cells in a paracrine fashion or to themselves via an autocrine pathway (Figs. 4A-4B, blue boxed). Second, effector CD4+ (cluster 8 pre-effector CXCR3high, cluster 17 effector memory, and cluster 31 Treg) and CD8+ (cluster 14 cytotoxic and cluster 26 innate-like cytotoxic) T cells were able to receive signals (Figs. 4A-4B, red boxed, and Supplementary Fig. 5B). We next focused on these clusters to identify significant signaling pathways and ligand and receptor pairs (Fig. 4C).
After extensive interactome analysis, we ended up identifying key ligand and receptor pairs, which were mainly derived from secretory (SPP1), cell-cell intact (APP), and extracellular matrix-receptor (FN1 and Collagen) pathways (Fig. 4D and Supplementary Fig. 5C). Interestingly, T cell receptors CD44 and CD74 showed high communication probability, contributing most to the outgoing signaling of the representative ligands from cancer cells (Supplementary Fig. 5D). The ligand and receptor genes showed high expression levels in the interacting cancer cells and T clusters (Fig. 4E). Finally, ligands from cancer cells were also expressed in immune modulatory cancer cell subpopulations (clusters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7) (Fig. 4F), suggesting potential immune suppressive mechanisms mediated by cancer cell-T interaction.