Cited by 2,196Gene expression and cancer classificationBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data

Open access
Leek, Jeffrey T., Scharpf, Robert B., Bravo, Héctor Corrada, Simcha, David, Langmead, Benjamin, Johnson, W. Evan, Geman, Donald, Baggerly, Keith +1 more·2010·Nature Reviews Genetics

Abstract

High-throughput technologies are widely used, for example to assay genetic variants, gene and protein expression, and epigenetic modifications. One often overlooked complication with such studies is batch effects, which occur because measurements are affected by laboratory conditions, reagent lots and personnel differences. This becomes a major problem when batch effects are correlated with an outcome of interest and lead to incorrect conclusions. Using both published studies and our own analyses, we argue that batch effects (as well as other technical and biological artefacts) are widespread and critical to address. We review experimental and computational approaches for doing so.

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/nrg2825

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Batch effects make it difficult to draw conclusions from data across experimental batches.

    “These batch effects make it difficult to draw conclusions from data across experimental batches (Leek et al., 2010; Parker and Leek, 2012; Soneson et al., 2014; Nygaard et al., 2016; Caicedo et al., 2017).”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Leek et al., 2010

  • Several methods have been suggested to adjust for batch effects, including recommendations for experimental designs and statistical approaches.

    “Several methods have been suggested to adjust for batch effects, including recommendations for experimental designs and statistical approaches (see for example Leek et al., 2010).”
  • Measurements from high-throughput screens are confounded by technical artifacts that arise from differences in the execution of each batch.

    “Despite attempts to carefully control experimental variables such as temperature, humidity, and reagent concentration, measurements from these screens are confounded by technical artifacts that arise from differences in the execution of each batch.”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Leek et al., 2010

  • Batch effects and technical variation due to unknown confounders are common in both scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq.

    “Batch effects and technical variation due to unknown (unmodeled) confounders are common in both scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq.”
  • Network edges are susceptible to ascertainment biases and confounding factors that can induce spurious relationships.

    “Notably, edges are susceptible to ascertainment biases52,214,215 and confounding factors that can induce spurious relationships178 (FIG. 2b).”

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
Leek, J. T., Scharpf, R. B., Bravo, H. C., Simcha, D., Langmead, B., Johnson, W. E., Geman, D., Baggerly, K., & Irizarry, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Brigham Young University (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Irizarry, Rafael A.
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Published
2010-09-14
Volume
11
Issue
10
Pages
733-739
ISSN
  • 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0064
OpenAlex
W2096192437
Cited by
2,196
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 235 · 2025: 166 · 2024: 159 · 2023: 125 · 2022: 178 · 2021: 178 · 2020: 167 · 2019: 138 · 2018: 152 · 2017: 130 · 2016: 133 · 2015: 107 · 2014: 100 · 2013: 95 · 2012: 70
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health (5u41hg004059-15)
  • Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge (079895)
  • NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (HG005220, U41-HG004059, HG004059, R00HG005015, R01HG005220, P41HG004059, U24HG004059)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM0083084, R01GM083084)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
batch effects, high-throughput omics data, confounding, gene expression, protein expression, epigenetic modifications, laboratory conditions
MeSH terms
Biotechnology, Periodicals as Topic, Research Design, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Computational Biology, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Genomics

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