Cited by 107Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Computational approaches for interpreting sc RNA‐seq data

Open access

Abstract

The recent developments in high‐throughput single‐cell RNA sequencing technology (sc RNA‐seq) have enabled the generation of vast amounts of transcriptomic data at cellular resolution. With these advances come new modes of data analysis, building on high‐dimensional data mining techniques. Here, we consider biological questions for which sc RNA‐seq data is used, both at a cell and gene level, and describe tools available for these types of analyses. This is an exciting and rapidly evolving field, where clustering, pseudotime inference, branching inference and gene‐level analyses are particularly informative areas of computational analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/1873-3468.12684

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Overview of analysis methods for the interpretation of scRNA‐seq data.
Figure 1 Overview of analysis methods for the interpretation of scRNA‐seq data.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1126/sciimmunol.aal2192 · DOI
  2. Campbell K, 2016, Ouija: Incorporating prior knowledge in single‐cell trajectory learning using Bayesian nonlinear factor analysis, bioRxiv
  3. Andrews TS, 2016, Modelling dropouts allows for unbiased identification of marker genes in scRNASeq experiments, bioRxiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 107

Metadata

Authors
Rostom, R., Svensson, V., Teichmann, S. A., & Kar, G.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Kar, Gozde
Venue
FEBS Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06-12
Volume
591
Issue
15
Pages
2213-2225
ISSN
  • 0014-5793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-3468
OpenAlex
W2615816755
Cited by
107
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11
FWCI
1.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • FEBS Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
single-cell RNA sequencing, scRNA-seq data analysis, cell clustering, gene expression analysis, high-dimensional data mining
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Gene Expression, Cluster Analysis, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, Single-Cell Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review