Malaysia: +603 2779 0098
In the run-up to the American Spatial Biology Congress, we are asking participants to share their thoughts about the developments that are taking place in this rapidly developing field.
In the second of these mini blogs, we asked Tatiana Novitskaya, a consultant on spatial biology approaches, with expertise in technology development, adoption and analysis “What do you identify as the primary challenges in advancing spatial biology to mass adoption and from research to clinical practice?”
Recent technical advances applied to histological sections, coupled with ‘big data’ computational approaches, have provided unprecedented opportunities to characterize tissues from normal and pathological cases at single-cell and subcellular levels on a multiplex scale. This progress has given rise to the field of Spatial Biology. After the rapid transition from technology development to early adoption, the field is now entering the mass adoption phase, where translating these innovations into clinical practice is envisioned.
However, the technical ability to measure multiple targets on histological sections often surpasses analytical ability. While deciphering spatial data we should shift our focus from solely single-cell analysis to elucidating tissue-level dynamics. Single cells are the principal structural units of the tissue, but Spatial Biology projects must go beyond providing “densities” and “distances”. They should deliver a comprehensive understanding of the relationships between cell groups that drive pathological processes. Achieving this level of insight requires close collaboration among scientists, analysts, and trained pathologists. Such coordinated efforts will pave the way for widespread adoption of both the technical and analytical tools of Spatial Biology.
Despite its relatively recent emergence as a field, Spatial Biology has already demonstrated immense value in discovery research, enabling the identification of novel targets and biomarkers within complex biological systems. These promising results have sparked growing interest in applying Spatial Biology methods to clinical investigations.
To address challenges of advancing Spatial Biology from research to clinical practice, it is helpful to reflect on the field’s origins. Built on the solid foundation of histological evaluation in Pathology, the field has evolved through milestones such as the introduction of H&E staining 150 years ago, the first use of antibodies on tissue sections in 1941, and gene probes – in the 1960s–1970s. In Pathology, transitioning research-use-only (RUO) IHC assays into Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) and In-Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) follows well-established, FDA-regulated standards.
For Spatial Biology to achieve clinical adoption, its tools—including reagents, instruments, and algorithms—must undergo rigorous validation to ensure reproducibility, specificity, and sensitivity. These measures are essential for integrating spatial omics into clinical decision-making workflows. However, transitioning these tools into regulated environment may limit assay customization and increase costs. Despite these hurdles, standardization offers the potential to improve turnaround time, accuracy, and reliability through better reagent quality control, automation, and computational enhancements—all aimed at delivering better tools to serve patients.
Tatiana Novitskaya is a track chair at the American Spatial Biology Congress.
Join her and 30 other speakers in San Diego.
Only products with same currency can be added to the basket. Clear the basket or finish the order, before adding products with another currency to the basket.
