Cited by 1,348Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Bayesian approach to single-cell differential expression analysis

Open access
Kharchenko, Peter V, Silberstein, Lev, Scadden, David T·2014·Nature Methods

Abstract

Single-cell data provide a means to dissect the composition of complex tissues and specialized cellular environments. However, the analysis of such measurements is complicated by high levels of technical noise and intrinsic biological variability. We describe a probabilistic model of expression-magnitude distortions typical of single-cell RNA-sequencing measurements, which enables detection of differential expression signatures and identification of subpopulations of cells in a way that is more tolerant of noise.

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/nmeth.2967

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Papers evaluating the performance of single-cell-specific tools all compute the simulations as if cells were independent.

    “Furthermore, papers evaluating the performance of single-cell-specific tools all compute the simulations as if cells were independent15–21.”

    From A practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Online Methods sections on similarity measures and differential-expression performance describe evaluations of single-cell tools, including random resampling of cells and benchmarking against measured expression data. They do not establish that this paper computed simulations as if cells were independent, or support the claim that all such papers did so. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The sparsity and heterogeneity of single-cell data initially encouraged the development of specialized statistical methods to identify differentially expressed mRNAs.

    “The sparsity and heterogeneity of single-cell data initially encouraged the development of specialized statistical methods to identify differentially expressed mRNAs7,8.”
  • Sparsity and heterogeneity are two major challenges in analyzing single-cell data and usually cause false discoveries of differentially expressed genes.

    “Sparsity and heterogeneity are two major challenges in analyzing single-cell data, and usually cause false discoveries of differentially expressed genes65.”
  • The cell cycle often has an enormous impact on cellular gene expression, and this impact can extend to other processes and be affected by them.

    “The cell cycle often has an enormous impact on cellular gene expression146,149,150 (although some87 have challenged this view), but this impact can extend to other processes, and in turn be affected by them.”
  • Measurements of single-cell transcriptomes contain various sources of noise.

    “Measurements of single‐cell transcriptomes contain various sources of noise (Grün et al, 2014; Kharchenko et al, 2014; Hicks et al, 2017).”

    From Current best practices in single-cell RNA-seq analysis: a tutorial (2019) · cites this paper as Kharchenko et al, 2014

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
Kharchenko, P. V., Silberstein, L., & Scadden, D. T.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Kharchenko, Peter V
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2014-05-18
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
740-742
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W1967327758
Cited by
1,348
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 114 · 2023: 122 · 2022: 136 · 2021: 166 · 2020: 160 · 2019: 150 · 2018: 134 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 7
FWCI
28.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (K25AG037596)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL100402, R01HL097794)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK050234)
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, differential gene expression, Bayesian model, expression variability, technical noise, biological variation, probabilistic models, cell subpopulations, noise immunity
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, 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