Cited by 83Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGene expression and cancer classification

Comprehensive generation, visualization, and reporting of quality control metrics for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Open access
Hong, Rui, Koga, Yusuke, Bandyadka, Shruthi, Leshchyk, Anastasia, Wang, Yichen, Akavoor, Vidya, Cao, Xinyun, Sarfraz, Irzam +6 more·2022·Nature Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) can be used to gain insights into cellular heterogeneity within complex tissues. However, various technical artifacts can be present in scRNA-seq data and should be assessed before performing downstream analyses. While several tools have been developed to perform individual quality control (QC) tasks, they are scattered in different packages across several programming environments. Here, to streamline the process of generating and visualizing QC metrics for scRNA-seq data, we built the SCTK-QC pipeline within the singleCellTK R package. The SCTK-QC workflow can import data from several single-cell platforms and preprocessing tools and includes steps for empty droplet detection, generation of standard QC metrics, prediction of doublets, and estimation of ambient RNA. It can run on the command line, within the R console, on the cloud platform or with an interactive graphical user interface. Overall, the SCTK-QC pipeline streamlines and standardizes the process of performing QC for scRNA-seq data.

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/s41467-022-29212-9

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Low-quality nuclei isolation protocols can introduce artifacts that compromise data interpretation and experimental reliability.

    “Low-quality nuclei isolation protocols can introduce artifacts that compromise the proper data interpretation and the experimental reliability[32, 33].”

    From Comparative analysis of nuclei isolation methods for brain single-nucleus RNA sequencing (2026) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Introduction says that sample-preparation artifacts in single-cell RNA sequencing can confound downstream analyses or produce erroneous findings. It discusses cell dissociation and other cell-based procedures, not low-quality nuclei isolation protocols specifically, so the claim extends beyond the source's stated setting. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [32]Merkel, D. Docker: lightweight linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux J.239, 2 (2014).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hong, R., Koga, Y., Bandyadka, S., Leshchyk, A., Wang, Y., Akavoor, V., Cao, X., Sarfraz, I., Wang, Z., Alabdullatif, S., Jansen, F., Yajima, M., Johnson, W. E., & Campbell, J. D.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Campbell, Joshua D.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2022-03-30
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
1688-1688
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4226031055
Cited by
82
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 6
FWCI
5.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica
  • National Institutes of Health (1u2cca233238-01, 1U2CCA233238)
  • National Cancer Institute (U01CA220413, U2C-CA233238, 1U2CCA233238)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM100842, R01GM127430)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM013154)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
single-cell RNA sequencing, quality control metrics, doublet detection, technical artifacts, data visualization, bioinformatics pipeline
MeSH terms
Exome Sequencing, Quality Control, Software, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Benchmarking

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