Cited by 920Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGene expression and cancer classification

Low-coverage single-cell mRNA sequencing reveals cellular heterogeneity and activated signaling pathways in developing cerebral cortex

Open access
Pollen, Alex A, Nowakowski, Tomasz J, Shuga, Joe, Wang, Xiaohui, Leyrat, Anne A, Lui, Jan H, Li, Nianzhen, Szpankowski, Lukasz +22 more·2014·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

Large-scale surveys of single-cell gene expression have the potential to reveal rare cell populations and lineage relationships but require efficient methods for cell capture and mRNA sequencing. Although cellular barcoding strategies allow parallel sequencing of single cells at ultra-low depths, the limitations of shallow sequencing have not been investigated directly. By capturing 301 single cells from 11 populations using microfluidics and analyzing single-cell transcriptomes across downsampled sequencing depths, we demonstrate that shallow single-cell mRNA sequencing (~50,000 reads per cell) is sufficient for unbiased cell-type classification and biomarker identification. In the developing cortex, we identify diverse cell types, including multiple progenitor and neuronal subtypes, and we identify EGR1 and FOS as previously unreported candidate targets of Notch signaling in human but not mouse radial glia. Our strategy establishes an efficient method for unbiased analysis and comparison of cell populations from heterogeneous tissue by microfluidic single-cell capture and low-coverage sequencing of many cells.

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 · 10.1038/nbt.2967

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • When studying single cells, quantification is often carried out with just one million reads but may be done reliably for highly expressed genes with as few as 50,000 reads.

    “When studying single cells, which have limited sample complexity, quantification is often carried out with just one million reads but may be done reliably for highly expressed genes with as few as 50,000 reads [8]; even 20,000 reads have been used to differentiate cell types in splenic tissue [9].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Deeper sequencing for scRNA-seq will do little to improve quantification as the number of individual mRNA molecules in a cell is small (100-300,000 transcripts) and only a fraction are successfully reverse-transcribed to cDNA.

    “Deeper sequencing for scRNA-seq will do little to improve quantification as the number of individual mRNA molecules in a cell is small (in the order of 100–300,000 transcripts) and only a fraction of them are successfully reverse-transcribed to cDNA [8, 176]”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [8]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pollen, A. A., Nowakowski, T. J., Shuga, J., Wang, X., Leyrat, A. A., Lui, J. H., Li, N., Szpankowski, L., Fowler, B., Chen, P., Ramalingam, N., Sun, G., Thu, M., Norris, M., Lebofsky, R., Toppani, D., Kemp, D. W., Wong, M., Clerkson, B., Jones, B. N., Wu, S., Knutsson, L., Alvarado, B., Wang, J., Weaver, L. S., May, A. P., Jones, R. C., Unger, M. A., Kriegstein, A. R., & West, J. A. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Standard BioTools (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Pollen, Alex A
  • Kriegstein, Arnold R
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2014-08-03
Volume
32
Issue
10
Pages
1053-1058
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2051658465
Cited by
920
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 105 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 91 · 2016: 74 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
30.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS072630, R01NS075998)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
single-cell transcriptomics, low-pass sequencing, cellular heterogeneity, cortical development, microfluidic cell capture, cell type classification, biomarker discovery, Notch signaling, radial glia, EGR1, FOS, human brain
MeSH terms
Animals, Cerebral Cortex, Equipment Design, Humans, RNA, Messenger, Signal Transduction, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling, Microfluidic Analytical Techniques, 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