A general and flexible method for signal extraction from single-cell RNA-seq data
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) is a powerful high-throughput technique that enables researchers to measure genome-wide transcription levels at the resolution of single cells. Because of the low amount of RNA present in a single cell, some genes may fail to be detected even though they are expressed; these genes are usually referred to as dropouts. Here, we present a general and flexible zero-inflated negative binomial model (ZINB-WaVE), which leads to low-dimensional representations of the data that account for zero inflation (dropouts), over-dispersion, and the count nature of the data. We demonstrate, with simulated and real data, that the model and its associated estimation procedure are able to give a more stable and accurate low-dimensional representation of the data than principal component analysis (PCA) and zero-inflated factor analysis (ZIFA), without the need for a preliminary normalization step.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Count data is overdispersed in both bulk and single-cell RNA-seq.
“This is consistent with previous observations in both bulk and single-cell RNA-seq that count data is overdispersed [9, 12, 14, 28].”
From Normalization and variance stabilization of single-cell RNA-seq data using regularized negative binomial regression (2019) · cites this paper as [9]
According to this comparison, the top-performing DE analysis tools are DESeq2 and EdgeR in combination with weights estimated by ZINB-wave.
“According to this comparison, the top‐performing DE analysis tools are DESeq2 (Love et al, 2014) and EdgeR (Robinson et al, 2010) in combination with weights estimated by ZINB‐wave (Risso et al, 2018).”
From Current best practices in single-cell RNA-seq analysis: a tutorial (2019) · cites this paper as Risso et al, 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 718
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [22]Hicks, S. C., Teng, M. & Irizarry, R. A. On the widespread and critical impact of systematic bias and batch effects in single-cell RNA-Seq data. bioRxiv10.1101/025528 025528 (2015).
- Authors
- Risso, D., Perraudeau, F., Gribkova, S., Dudoit, S., & Vert, J.-P.
- Affiliations
- Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Laboratoire de Probabilités et Modèles Aléatoires (FR)
- Inserm (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Dudoit, Sandrine
- Vert, Jean-Philippe
- Venue
- Nature Communications
- Published
- 2018-01-18
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 284-284
- ISSN
- 2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5773593
- OpenAlex
- W2783644856
- Cited by
- 718
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 102 · 2022: 100 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 99 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 10
- FWCI
- 26.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2019-02-04)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Adolph C. and Mary Sprague Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science, University of California Berkeley
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-BINF-0001)
- National Institutes of Health (-0001)
- National Institute of Mental Health (U01MH105979)
- FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (280032)
- 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, signal extraction, zero-inflated negative binomial regression, excess zeros, overdispersion, low-dimensional representation, principal component analysis, count data, gene expression normalization
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cell Line, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Male, Neurons, RNA, Visual Cortex, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling, Principal Component Analysis, Mice, Single-Cell Analysis, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
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