Cited by 446Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Benchmarking of cell type deconvolution pipelines for transcriptomics data

Open access
Avila Cobos, Francisco, Alquicira-Hernandez, José, Powell, Joseph E., Mestdagh, Pieter, De Preter, Katleen·2020·Nature Communications

Abstract

Many computational methods have been developed to infer cell type proportions from bulk transcriptomics data. However, an evaluation of the impact of data transformation, pre-processing, marker selection, cell type composition and choice of methodology on the deconvolution results is still lacking. Using five single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) datasets, we generate pseudo-bulk mixtures to evaluate the combined impact of these factors. Both bulk deconvolution methodologies and those that use scRNA-seq data as reference perform best when applied to data in linear scale and the choice of normalization has a dramatic impact on some, but not all methods. Overall, methods that use scRNA-seq data have comparable performance to the best performing bulk methods whereas semi-supervised approaches show higher error values. Moreover, failure to include cell types in the reference that are present in a mixture leads to substantially worse results, regardless of the previous choices. Altogether, we evaluate the combined impact of factors affecting the deconvolution task across different datasets and propose general guidelines to maximize its performance.

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/s41467-020-19015-1

Cites

76 of 76 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?

  • Computational deconvolution tools provide a less accurate estimation of cell-type-specific information from bulk sequence reads than direct isolation methods.

    “While computational deconvolution tools exists for obtaining cell-type-specific information from bulk sequence reads from heterogenous tissue, they nonetheless provide a less accurate estimation [148].”

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. [61]Clark‐Carter, D. z Scores. in Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online10.1002/9781118445112.stat06236 (American Cancer Society, 2014).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Avila Cobos, F., Alquicira-Hernandez, J., Powell, J. E., Mestdagh, P., & De Preter, K.
Affiliations
  • Garvan Institute of Medical Research (AU)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2020-11-06
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
5650-5650
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3096486123
Cited by
446
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 95 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 38
FWCI
16.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • European Commission (668858, HORIZON2020, 826121)
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Universiteit Gent
  • Vlaamse regering
  • Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGent
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
cell type deconvolution, benchmarking, bulk transcriptomics, single-cell RNA sequencing, normalization, marker selection, cell type composition, data transformation
MeSH terms
Animals, Cells, Humans, Species Specificity, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling, Mice, Data Mining, Single-Cell Analysis, Transcriptome

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