Cited by 1,084Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Single-cell RNA-seq denoising using a deep count autoencoder

Open access
Eraslan, Gökcen, Simon, Lukas M., Mircea, Maria, Mueller, Nikola S., Theis, Fabian J.·2019·Nature Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has enabled researchers to study gene expression at a cellular resolution. However, noise due to amplification and dropout may obstruct analyses, so scalable denoising methods for increasingly large but sparse scRNA-seq data are needed. We propose a deep count autoencoder network (DCA) to denoise scRNA-seq datasets. DCA takes the count distribution, overdispersion and sparsity of the data into account using a negative binomial noise model with or without zero-inflation, and nonlinear gene-gene dependencies are captured. Our method scales linearly with the number of cells and can, therefore, be applied to datasets of millions of cells. We demonstrate that DCA denoising improves a diverse set of typical scRNA-seq data analyses using simulated and real datasets. DCA outperforms existing methods for data imputation in quality and speed, enhancing biological discovery.

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/s41467-018-07931-2

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Statistical and deep-learning methods designed for single-cell RNA-seq data often utilize a negative binomial (or zero-inflated negative binomial) error model.

    “Importantly, statistical and deep-learning methods designed for single-cell RNA-seq data often utilize a negative binomial (or zero-inflated negative binomial) error model [10, 15].”
  • Performing expression recovery has been shown to improve the estimation of gene-gene correlations.

    “Performing expression recovery has been shown to improve the estimation of gene–gene correlations (van Dijk et al, 2018; Eraslan et al, 2019).”

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

  • First applications of deep learning to scRNA-seq are starting to emerge from dimensionality reduction to denoising.

    “First applications to scRNA‐seq are starting to emerge from dimensionality reduction to denoising (e.g. scVis: Ding et al, 2018; scGen: preprint: Lotfollahi et al, 2018; DCA: Eraslan et al, 2019).”

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

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. [24]Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. & Courville, A. Deep Learning. (MIT Press, 2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eraslan, G., Simon, L. M., Mircea, M., Mueller, N. S., & Theis, F. J.
Affiliations
Helmholtz Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Theis, Fabian J.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2019-01-23
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
390-390
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2951381561
Cited by
1,084
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 132 · 2025: 165 · 2024: 147 · 2023: 153 · 2022: 150 · 2021: 148 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 7
FWCI
39.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission (753039, HORIZON2020)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (ZT-I-0007, Subproject A17)
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, data denoising, overdispersion, excess zeros, count data, gene expression imputation, data sparsity
MeSH terms
Animals, Blood Cells, Gene Expression Regulation, Leukocytes, Mononuclear, Phenotype, RNA, Models, Statistical, Caenorhabditis elegans, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, RNA, Small Cytoplasmic, 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