Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Identify spatial domains and tissue regions in spatial transcriptomics data using Squidpy and Scanpy. Cluster spots considering both expression and spatial context to define anatomical regions. Use when identifying tissue domains or spatial regions.
.claude/skills/bio-spatial-transcriptomics-spatial-domains/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Reference examples tested with: matplotlib 3.8+, numpy 1.26+, pandas 2.2+, scanpy 1.10+, scikit-learn 1.4+, scipy 1.12+, squidpy 1.3+
Before using code patterns, verify installed versions match. If versions differ:
pip show <package> then help(module.function) to check signaturesIf code throws ImportError, AttributeError, or TypeError, introspect the installed package and adapt the example to match the actual API rather than retrying.
"Identify tissue domains in my spatial data" → Cluster spots/cells considering both gene expression and physical proximity to define anatomically coherent spatial domains.
squidpy.gr.spatial_neighbors() → Leiden clustering with spatial graph, or BayesSpace/SpaGCNIdentify spatial domains and tissue regions by combining expression and spatial information.
pythonimport squidpy as sq import scanpy as sc import numpy as np import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
Goal: Cluster spots based purely on gene expression, ignoring spatial location.
Approach: Build an expression-based neighbor graph, then apply Leiden community detection.
python# Standard Leiden clustering (ignores spatial context) sc.pp.neighbors(adata, n_neighbors=15, n_pcs=30) sc.tl.leiden(adata, resolution=0.5, key_added='leiden') # Visualize on tissue sq.pl.spatial_scatter(adata, color='leiden', size=1.3)
Goal: Cluster spots using only spatial proximity to identify contiguous tissue regions.
Approach: Build a spatial neighbor graph, then run Leiden clustering on the spatial graph.
python# Build spatial neighbors sq.gr.spatial_neighbors(adata, coord_type='generic', n_neighs=6) # Run Leiden on spatial graph sc.tl.leiden(adata, resolution=0.5, key_added='spatial_leiden', neighbors_key='spatial_neighbors') sq.pl.spatial_scatter(adata, color='spatial_leiden', size=1.3)
Goal: Integrate both expression similarity and spatial proximity for domain detection.
Approach: Build separate expression and spatial graphs, normalize each, then combine as a weighted average for clustering.
pythonfrom scipy.sparse import csr_matrix from sklearn.preprocessing import normalize # Build both graphs sq.gr.spatial_neighbors(adata, coord_type='generic', n_neighs=6) sc.pp.neighbors(adata, n_neighbors=15, n_pcs=30) # Combine graphs (weighted average) spatial_weight = 0.3 spatial_conn = adata.obsp['spatial_connectivities'] expr_conn = adata.obsp['connectivities'] # Normalize spatial_norm = normalize(spatial_conn, norm='l1', axis=1) expr_norm = normalize(expr_conn, norm='l1', axis=1) # Combine combined = spatial_weight * spatial_norm + (1 - spatial_weight) * expr_norm adata.obsp['combined_connectivities'] = csr_matrix(combined) # Cluster on combined graph sc.tl.leiden(adata, resolution=0.5, key_added='combined_leiden', adjacency=adata.obsp['combined_connectivities'])
python# BayesSpace provides spatial smoothing for domain detection # Run in R, then import results # R code (run separately): # library(BayesSpace) # sce <- readRDS("sce.rds") # sce <- spatialPreprocess(sce, platform="Visium") # sce <- spatialCluster(sce, q=7, nrep=10000) # saveRDS(sce, "sce_bayesspace.rds") # Import BayesSpace results import rpy2.robjects as ro from rpy2.robjects import pandas2ri pandas2ri.activate() ro.r('sce <- readRDS("sce_bayesspace.rds")') spatial_clusters = ro.r('colData(sce)$spatial.cluster') adata.obs['bayesspace'] = list(spatial_clusters)
Goal: Detect spatial domains using deep learning with graph attention networks.
Approach: Build a spatial graph with STAGATE, train the model to learn spatially-aware embeddings, then cluster on those embeddings.
python# STAGATE uses graph attention for spatial domain detection import STAGATE # Build graph STAGATE.Cal_Spatial_Net(adata, rad_cutoff=150) STAGATE.Stats_Spatial_Net(adata) # Train STAGATE adata = STAGATE.train_STAGATE(adata, alpha=0) # Cluster on STAGATE embeddings sc.pp.neighbors(adata, use_rep='STAGATE') sc.tl.leiden(adata, resolution=0.5, key_added='stagate_leiden')
Goal: Assess whether identified domains form spatially and transcriptionally coherent regions.
Approach: Compute silhouette scores separately for spatial coordinates and expression PCA to quantify domain separation.
python# Check if domains are spatially coherent from sklearn.metrics import silhouette_score coords = adata.obsm['spatial'] labels = adata.obs['spatial_leiden'].values # Spatial silhouette score spatial_silhouette = silhouette_score(coords, labels) print(f'Spatial silhouette score: {spatial_silhouette:.3f}') # Expression silhouette score expr_silhouette = silhouette_score(adata.obsm['X_pca'], labels) print(f'Expression silhouette score: {expr_silhouette:.3f}')
Goal: Smooth noisy domain assignments to produce cleaner spatial boundaries.
Approach: Apply iterative majority-vote smoothing using the spatial neighbor graph to reassign each spot to the most common label among its neighbors.
python# Smooth domain assignments using spatial neighbors from scipy import sparse def smooth_domains(adata, cluster_key, n_iter=1): conn = adata.obsp['spatial_connectivities'] labels = adata.obs[cluster_key].values categories = adata.obs[cluster_key].cat.categories for _ in range(n_iter): new_labels = [] for i in range(adata.n_obs): neighbors = conn[i].nonzero()[1] if len(neighbors) > 0: neighbor_labels = labels[neighbors] # Majority vote unique, counts = np.unique(neighbor_labels, return_counts=True) new_labels.append(unique[counts.argmax()]) else: new_labels.append(labels[i]) labels = np.array(new_labels) adata.obs[f'{cluster_key}_smoothed'] = pd.Categorical(labels, categories=categories) smooth_domains(adata, 'leiden', n_iter=2) sq.pl.spatial_scatter(adata, color=['leiden', 'leiden_smoothed'], ncols=2)
python# Compare different clustering approaches from sklearn.metrics import adjusted_rand_score methods = ['leiden', 'spatial_leiden', 'combined_leiden'] for i, m1 in enumerate(methods): for m2 in methods[i+1:]: ari = adjusted_rand_score(adata.obs[m1], adata.obs[m2]) print(f'{m1} vs {m2}: ARI = {ari:.3f}')
Goal: Identify marker genes that distinguish each spatial domain from the rest.
Approach: Run Wilcoxon rank-sum tests per domain, then extract and visualize top-ranked differentially expressed genes.
python# Find marker genes for each domain sc.tl.rank_genes_groups(adata, groupby='spatial_leiden', method='wilcoxon') # Get top markers markers = sc.get.rank_genes_groups_df(adata, group=None) print(markers.groupby('group').head(5)) # Plot top markers on tissue top_markers = markers.groupby('group').head(1)['names'].tolist() sq.pl.spatial_scatter(adata, color=top_markers[:6], ncols=3)
Goal: Assign biological labels to spatial domain clusters based on marker gene identity.
Approach: Map cluster IDs to anatomical region names using a dictionary and visualize the annotated tissue.
python# Manual annotation based on markers domain_annotations = { '0': 'White matter', '1': 'Cortex layer 1', '2': 'Cortex layer 2/3', '3': 'Cortex layer 4', '4': 'Cortex layer 5', '5': 'Cortex layer 6', } adata.obs['domain'] = adata.obs['spatial_leiden'].map(domain_annotations) sq.pl.spatial_scatter(adata, color='domain', size=1.3)
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-05 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +27 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.