Fig 2: HSEs possess an EMT-like gene expression signature driven by EGF signaling(A) Cell-cell communication networks predicted for the EGF signaling pathway inferred using the R package CellChat. Edge weights represent the probability of signaling between cell clusters.(B) Relative contributions of each ligand, receptor, and cofactor group to the cell-cell communication predicted in (A).(C) Feature plots showing the expression patterns of EGFR and each of the ligands contributing to the EGF signaling network.(D) Violin plots of relative gene expression for positive markers (VIM, LAMC2, and LGALS1) and negative markers (CDH1) of EMT.(E) Visualization of signaling probability scores of ligand-receptor/co-receptor pairs involving LAMC2 for GelHSE and FibHSE datasets. In vivo datasets had no imputed signaling interactions involving LAMC2. Dot size represents p value.(F) Feature plots (top) and violin plots (bottom) showing the relative EMT gene score for each cell and cluster, separated by sample type.(G) Immunostaining of SLUG in the FibHSE, GelHSE, and in vivo samples. Scale bar, 100 µm.(H) Immunostaining of VIM in FibHSEs supplemented with the indicated concentrations of EGF. Quantification of VIM staining intensity is shown on the right. n = 3 each condition. One-tailed Student’s t test was used to determine significance. *p < 0.1. Scale bar, 100 µm.