Supplementary Tables S2-S12 from Single-Cell Transcriptomics Reveals Immune Landscape Dynamics in Metastatic Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Abemaciclib and Endocrine Therapy
Le résumé fourni par la source
Supplementary Table S2. Patient characteristics and number of cells analyzed. Supplementary Table S3. Marker genes for each cluster Supplementary Table S4. ANOVA with Tukey HSD multiple test correction results for cell type population size comparisons between response groups. Supplementary Table S5. ANOVA with Tukey HSD multiple test correction results for cell type population size comparisons between metastatic sites. Supplementary Table S6. Top 50 Marker genes for each lymphoid cluster Supplementary Table S7. Genes used for pathway signatures retrieved from MSigDB. Supplementary Table S8. Genes differentially expressed between lymphoid clusters between T2 and T1 for each response group. Positive log2FC indicates gene is more highly expressed at T2. Supplementary Table S9. Top 50 Marker genes for each myeloid cluster Supplementary Table S10. Genes differentially expressed between myeloid clusters between T2 and T1 for each response group. Positive log2FC indicates gene is more highly expressed at T2. Supplementary Table S11. Genes differentially expressed between myeloid clusters 1, 5, and 7. Supplementary Table S12. Genes used for survival analyses. Genes were selected by using a max pvalue cutoff of 0.05.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Supplementary Tables S2-S12 from Single-Cell Transcriptomics Reveals Immune Landscape Dynamics in Metastatic Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Abemaciclib and Endocrine Therapy
- Date Crossref
- 03/08/2026
- Éditeur
- American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.