Cited by 62Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Benchmarked approaches for reconstruction of in vitro cell lineages and in silico models of C. elegans and M. musculus developmental trees

Open access
Gong, Wuming, Granados, Alejandro A., Hu, Jingyuan, Jones, Matthew G., Raz, Ofir, Salvador-Martínez, Irepan, Zhang, Hanrui, Chow, Ke-Huan K. +29 more·2021·Cell Systems

Abstract

The recent advent of CRISPR and other molecular tools enabled the reconstruction of cell lineages based on induced DNA mutations and promises to solve the ones of more complex organisms. To date, no lineage reconstruction algorithms have been rigorously examined for their performance and robustness across dataset types and number of cells. To benchmark such methods, we decided to organize a DREAM challenge using in vitro experimental intMEMOIR recordings and in silico data for a C. elegans lineage tree of about 1,000 cells and a Mus musculus tree of 10,000 cells. Some of the 22 approaches submitted had excellent performance, but structural features of the trees prevented optimal reconstructions. Using smaller sub-trees as training sets proved to be a good approach for tuning algorithms to reconstruct larger trees. The simulation and reconstruction methods here generated delineate a potential way forward for solving larger cell lineage trees such as in mouse.

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 · 10.1016/j.cels.2021.05.008

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Reconstruction performance of lineage tracing algorithms is difficult to assess because they might highlight different parts of the lineages well.

    “Reconstruction performance of algorithms is difficult to assess, as they might highlight different parts of the lineages well75.”

    From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [75]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Spanjaard, B., Hu, B., Mitic, N., and Junker, J.P. (2017). Massively parallel sin- gle cell lineage tracing using CRISPR/Cas9 induced genetic scars. bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/205971v1.full. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gong, W., Granados, A. A., Hu, J., Jones, M. G., Raz, O., Salvador-Martínez, I., Zhang, H., Chow, K.-H. K., Kwak, I.-Y., Retkute, R., Prusokiene, A., Prusokas, A., Khodaverdian, A., Zhang, R., Rao, S., Wang, R., Rennert, P., Saipradeep, V. G., Sivadasan, N., Rao, A., Joseph, T., Srinivasan, R., Peng, J., Han, L., Shang, X., Garry, D. J., Yu, T., Chung, V., Mason, M., Liu, Z., Guan, Y., Yosef, N., Shendure, J., Telford, M. J., Shapiro, E., Elowitz, M. B., & Meyer, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Chung-Ang University (KR)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Tata Consultancy Services (India) (IN)
  • Northwestern Polytechnical University (CN)
  • Sage Bionetworks (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Meyer, Pablo
Venue
Cell Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-08
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
810-826.e4
ISSN
2405-4712 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3171133702
Cited by
62
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy (RGP0002/2016)
  • Human Frontier Science Program (2020)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
cell lineage reconstruction, DREAM challenge, benchmarking, CRISPR mutagenesis, Caenorhabditis elegans, Mus musculus, training data size, single-cell lineage tracing
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Computer Simulation, Caenorhabditis elegans, Cell Lineage, Mice

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