CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationCell Image Analysis Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clustering of single-cell multi-omics data with a multimodal deep learning method

Open access
Lin, Xiang, Tian, Tian, Wei, Zhi, Hakonarson, Hakon·2022·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-022-35031-9PMC PMC9748135
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Single-cell multimodal sequencing technologies are developed to simultaneously profile different modalities of data in the same cell. It provides a unique opportunity to jointly analyze multimodal data at the single-cell level for the identification of distinct cell types. A correct clustering result is essential for the downstream complex biological functional studies. However, combining different data sources for clustering analysis of single-cell multimodal data remains a statistical and computational challenge. Here, we develop a novel multimodal deep learning method, scMDC, for single-cell multi-omics data clustering analysis. scMDC is an end-to-end deep model that explicitly characterizes different data sources and jointly learns latent features of deep embedding for clustering analysis. Extensive simulation and real-data experiments reveal that scMDC outperforms existing single-cell single-modal and multimodal clustering methods on different single-cell multimodal datasets. The linear scalability of running time makes scMDC a promising method for analyzing large multimodal datasets.

Overview

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/s41467-022-35031-9

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 The architecture of scMDC. scMDC has one encoder for the concatenated data and two decoders for each modal in the multimodal data (a). It can be used for clustering CITE-seq data and 10x Single-Cell Multiome ATAC + Gene Expression (SMAGE-seq) data. The spiral symbols indicate the artificial noises added to the data. For multi-batch datasets, scMDC will work in a conditional autoencoder manner. A one-hot batch vector B (in dimension b) will be concatenated to the input feature of the encoder (with raw feature dimension, m) and the decoders (with latent feature dimension, z). This is designed for batch effect correction. scMDC learns a latent representation Z (in dimension z) of data on which different modalities are integrated. A deep K-means algorithm and a KLD loss are implemented on Z. Based on the clustering results, scMDC employs an ACE model36 to detect markers in different clusters (b). Then, pathway analyses can be conducted based on the gene ranks learned by ACE (c).
Fig. 1 The architecture of scMDC. scMDC has one encoder for the concatenated data and two decoders for each modal in the multimodal data (a). It can be used for clustering CITE-seq data and 10x Single-Cell Multiome ATAC + Gene Expression (SMAGE-seq) data. The spiral symbols indicate the artificial noises added to the data. For multi-batch datasets, scMDC will work in a conditional autoencoder manner. A one-hot batch vector B (in dimension b) will be concatenated to the input feature of the encoder (with raw feature dimension, m) and the decoders (with latent feature dimension, z). This is designed for batch effect correction. scMDC learns a latent representation Z (in dimension z) of data on which different modalities are integrated. A deep K-means algorithm and a KLD loss are implemented on Z. Based on the clustering results, scMDC employs an ACE model36 to detect markers in different clusters (b). Then, pathway analyses can be conducted based on the gene ranks learned by ACE (c).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Clustering performance of scMDC and the competing methods on different CITE-seq datasets. All the methods are tested on seven one-batch datasets (a, n = 7) and two two-batch datasets (b, n = 2). In panels (a) and (b), clustering performance is illustrated in a two-dimensional manner with ARI as the Y axis and NMI as the X axis. Circles stand for the results of the multi-omics methods and triangles stand for the results of the single-omics methods. The differences between the performance of scMDC and the competing methods are shown in boxplots (c, n = 9). Each boxplot shows the minimum, first quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), and maximum of data. The minimum and maximum are the smallest data point that is equal to or greater than Q1 −1.5*IQR and the largest data point that is equal to or less than Q3 + 1.5*IQR, respectively. Each data point (a difference of performance in a dataset) is shown by a dot. We also summarized the performance of each method by showing the averaged ranks (d, n = 9). Each data point (a rank of a method in a dataset) is shown by a dot and the standard errors are shown by the error bars. In panels (c) and (d), clustering performance is evaluated by AMI, NMI, and ARI. Source data is provided as a Source Data file.
Fig. 2 Clustering performance of scMDC and the competing methods on different CITE-seq datasets. All the methods are tested on seven one-batch datasets (a, n = 7) and two two-batch datasets (b, n = 2). In panels (a) and (b), clustering performance is illustrated in a two-dimensional manner with ARI as the Y axis and NMI as the X axis. Circles stand for the results of the multi-omics methods and triangles stand for the results of the single-omics methods. The differences between the performance of scMDC and the competing methods are shown in boxplots (c, n = 9). Each boxplot shows the minimum, first quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), and maximum of data. The minimum and maximum are the smallest data point that is equal to or greater than Q1 −1.5*IQR and the largest data point that is equal to or less than Q3 + 1.5*IQR, respectively. Each data point (a difference of performance in a dataset) is shown by a dot. We also summarized the performance of each method by showing the averaged ranks (d, n = 9). Each data point (a rank of a method in a dataset) is shown by a dot and the standard errors are shown by the error bars. In panels (c) and (d), clustering performance is evaluated by AMI, NMI, and ARI. Source data is provided as a Source Data file.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Clustering performance of scMDC and the competing methods on different SMAGE-seq datasets. All the methods are tested on three one-batch datasets (a, n = 3) and one two-batch dataset (b, n = 1). In panels (a) and (b), clustering performance is illustrated in a two-dimensional manner with ARI as the Y-axis and NMI as the X-axis. Circles stand for the results of the multi-omics methods and triangles stand for the results of the single-omics methods. The differences between the performance of scMDC and the competing methods are shown in boxplots (c, n = 4). Each boxplot shows the minimum, first quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), and maximum of data. The minimum and maximum are the smallest data point that is equal to or greater than Q1 − 1.5 * IQR and the largest data point that is equal to or less than Q3 + 1.5 * IQR, respectively. Each data point (a difference in performance in a dataset) is shown by a dot. We also summarized the performance of each method by showing the averaged ranks (d, n = 4). Each data point (a rank of a method in a dataset) is shown by a dot and the standard errors are shown by the error bars. In panels (c) and (d), clustering performance is evaluated by AMI, NMI, and ARI. Source data is provided as a Source Data file.
Fig. 3 Clustering performance of scMDC and the competing methods on different SMAGE-seq datasets. All the methods are tested on three one-batch datasets (a, n = 3) and one two-batch dataset (b, n = 1). In panels (a) and (b), clustering performance is illustrated in a two-dimensional manner with ARI as the Y-axis and NMI as the X-axis. Circles stand for the results of the multi-omics methods and triangles stand for the results of the single-omics methods. The differences between the performance of scMDC and the competing methods are shown in boxplots (c, n = 4). Each boxplot shows the minimum, first quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), and maximum of data. The minimum and maximum are the smallest data point that is equal to or greater than Q1 − 1.5 * IQR and the largest data point that is equal to or less than Q3 + 1.5 * IQR, respectively. Each data point (a difference in performance in a dataset) is shown by a dot. We also summarized the performance of each method by showing the averaged ranks (d, n = 4). Each data point (a rank of a method in a dataset) is shown by a dot and the standard errors are shown by the error bars. In panels (c) and (d), clustering performance is evaluated by AMI, NMI, and ARI. Source data is provided as a Source Data file.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Clustering performance of scMDC and the competing methods on the simulation datasets. The first simulation experiment is to test the clustering performance of scMDC with low (a), medium (b), and high (c) clustering signals. The second simulation experiment is to test the clustering performance of scMDC with low (d), medium (e), and high (f) dropout rates. Since scMDC, Seurat, and TotalVI can correct the batch effect, we also test their clustering performance on a multi-batch simulation dataset (g). In panels (a–f), bars stand for the mean values, dots stand for the data points, and error bars stand for the standard errors. We generate ten replicates for each experimental setting (n = 10). The differences between the averaged performance of scMDC and the competing methods over all simulation datasets are shown in boxplots (h, n = 6). Each boxplot shows the minimum, first quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), and maximum of data. The minimum and maximum are the smallest data point that is equal to or greater than Q1 − 1.5 * IQR and the largest data point that is equal to or less than Q3 + 1.5 * IQR, respectively. Each data point (a difference of averaged performance in a dataset) is shown by a dot. We also summarized the performance of each method by showing the averaged ranks (i, n = 7). Each data point (an average rank of a method in a setting) is shown by a dot and the standard errors are shown by the error bars. In all panels, the clustering performance is evaluated by AMI, NMI, and ARI. Source data is provided as a Source Data file.
Fig. 4 Clustering performance of scMDC and the competing methods on the simulation datasets. The first simulation experiment is to test the clustering performance of scMDC with low (a), medium (b), and high (c) clustering signals. The second simulation experiment is to test the clustering performance of scMDC with low (d), medium (e), and high (f) dropout rates. Since scMDC, Seurat, and TotalVI can correct the batch effect, we also test their clustering performance on a multi-batch simulation dataset (g). In panels (a–f), bars stand for the mean values, dots stand for the data points, and error bars stand for the standard errors. We generate ten replicates for each experimental setting (n = 10). The differences between the averaged performance of scMDC and the competing methods over all simulation datasets are shown in boxplots (h, n = 6). Each boxplot shows the minimum, first quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), and maximum of data. The minimum and maximum are the smallest data point that is equal to or greater than Q1 − 1.5 * IQR and the largest data point that is equal to or less than Q3 + 1.5 * IQR, respectively. Each data point (a difference of averaged performance in a dataset) is shown by a dot. We also summarized the performance of each method by showing the averaged ranks (i, n = 7). Each data point (an average rank of a method in a setting) is shown by a dot and the standard errors are shown by the error bars. In all panels, the clustering performance is evaluated by AMI, NMI, and ARI. Source data is provided as a Source Data file.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Low-dimension representation of scMDC and the competing methods on the BMNC dataset. The t-SNE plots of the embeddings from scMDC (a) and four competing methods including IDEC (b), SCVIS (c), TotalVI (d), and Seurat (e) are shown in different rows. The first three columns show the expression pattern of genes LYZ, CD8A, and NKG7. The last column shows the true labels (cell types) on the latent space learned from each method.
Fig. 5 Low-dimension representation of scMDC and the competing methods on the BMNC dataset. The t-SNE plots of the embeddings from scMDC (a) and four competing methods including IDEC (b), SCVIS (c), TotalVI (d), and Seurat (e) are shown in different rows. The first three columns show the expression pattern of genes LYZ, CD8A, and NKG7. The last column shows the true labels (cell types) on the latent space learned from each method.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Low-dimension representation of scMDC and the competing methods on the SLN111 dataset. The t-SNE plots of the embeddings from scMDC (a) and four competing methods including IDEC (b), SCVIS (c), TotalVI (d), and Seurat (e) are shown in different rows. The three columns show the predicted labels, batch IDs, and true labels on the latent space learned from each method.
Fig. 6 Low-dimension representation of scMDC and the competing methods on the SLN111 dataset. The t-SNE plots of the embeddings from scMDC (a) and four competing methods including IDEC (b), SCVIS (c), TotalVI (d), and Seurat (e) are shown in different rows. The three columns show the predicted labels, batch IDs, and true labels on the latent space learned from each method.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Clustering performance of scMDC and the variant models on the multimodal datasets. scMDC, scMDC-RNA, scMDC-ADT, and scMDC-Concat are tested on the CITE-seq data (a, n = 9) and scMDC, scMDC-RNA, scMDC-ATAC, and scMDC-Concat are tested on the SMAGE-seq data (b, n = 4). In panels a and b, clustering performance is illustrated in a two-dimensional manner with ARI as the Y-axis and NMI as the X-axis. Circles stand for the results of multi-batch datasets and triangles stand for the results of single-batch datasets. The differences between the performance of scMDC and the competing methods in CITE-seq data (left, n = 9) and SMAGE-seq data (right, n = 4) are shown in boxplots (c). Each boxplot shows the minimum, first quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), and maximum of data. The minimum and maximum are the smallest data point that is equal to or greater than Q1 − 1.5 * IQR and the largest data point that is equal to or less than Q3 + 1.5 * IQR, respectively. The comparisons between scMDC and scDeepCluster are shown in a dotplot (d, n = 13). The paired performance for each dataset from the two methods are connected by lines. The differences between the performance of scMDC and the scDeepCluster are shown in boxplots and violin plots (e, n = 13). The definition of boxplots is the same as that in panel (c). In panels (d) and (e), the results of CITE-seq data are shown by circles, and the results of SMAGE-seq data are shown by triangles. Source data is provided as a Source Data file.
Fig. 7 Clustering performance of scMDC and the variant models on the multimodal datasets. scMDC, scMDC-RNA, scMDC-ADT, and scMDC-Concat are tested on the CITE-seq data (a, n = 9) and scMDC, scMDC-RNA, scMDC-ATAC, and scMDC-Concat are tested on the SMAGE-seq data (b, n = 4). In panels a and b, clustering performance is illustrated in a two-dimensional manner with ARI as the Y-axis and NMI as the X-axis. Circles stand for the results of multi-batch datasets and triangles stand for the results of single-batch datasets. The differences between the performance of scMDC and the competing methods in CITE-seq data (left, n = 9) and SMAGE-seq data (right, n = 4) are shown in boxplots (c). Each boxplot shows the minimum, first quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), and maximum of data. The minimum and maximum are the smallest data point that is equal to or greater than Q1 − 1.5 * IQR and the largest data point that is equal to or less than Q3 + 1.5 * IQR, respectively. The comparisons between scMDC and scDeepCluster are shown in a dotplot (d, n = 13). The paired performance for each dataset from the two methods are connected by lines. The differences between the performance of scMDC and the scDeepCluster are shown in boxplots and violin plots (e, n = 13). The definition of boxplots is the same as that in panel (c). In panels (d) and (e), the results of CITE-seq data are shown by circles, and the results of SMAGE-seq data are shown by triangles. Source data is provided as a Source Data file.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 Downstream analyses of scMDC in BMNC dataset. Differential expression analyses (a) and Hallmark gene set enrichment analyses (b) are conducted for four large cell clusters in the BMNC dataset based on the clustering result of scMDC. In panel (a), the dot size shows the expression percentage of a gene in a cell type, and colors show the average expression level of a gene in a cell type with blue as low and red as high.
Fig. 8 Downstream analyses of scMDC in BMNC dataset. Differential expression analyses (a) and Hallmark gene set enrichment analyses (b) are conducted for four large cell clusters in the BMNC dataset based on the clustering result of scMDC. In panel (a), the dot size shows the expression percentage of a gene in a cell type, and colors show the average expression level of a gene in a cell type with blue as low and red as high.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 9 Hyperparameter tuning and running time testing of scMDC. This experiment is conducted on six real datasets (n = 6). Phi (a) and Gamma (b) are set ranging from 0 to 1 and 0.001 to 100, respectively. We test the running time of scMDC by increasing the cell numbers in the simulated datasets from 1000 to 100,000 (c, n = 7). Source data is provided as a Source Data file.
Fig. 9 Hyperparameter tuning and running time testing of scMDC. This experiment is conducted on six real datasets (n = 6). Phi (a) and Gamma (b) are set ranging from 0 to 1 and 0.001 to 100, respectively. We test the running time of scMDC by increasing the cell numbers in the simulated datasets from 1000 to 100,000 (c, n = 7). Source data is provided as a Source Data file.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Ng, A., Jordan, M. & Weiss, Y. On spectral clustering: analysis and an algorithm. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 14, 849–856 (2001).
  2. Xie, J., Girshick, R. & Farhadi, A. Unsupervised Deep Embedding for Clustering Analysis. In: (eds Balcan, M. F. & Weinberger, K. Q.) Proceedings of Machine Learning Research Vol. 48, 478–487 (PMLR, 2016).
  3. Lu, Y. Y., Timothy, C. Y., Bonora, G. & Noble, W. S. ACE: Explaining cluster from an adversarial perspective. In: (eds Meila, M. & Zhang, T.) International Conference on Machine Learning. 7156–7167 (PMLR).
  4. Clevert, D.-A., Unterthiner, T. & Hochreiter, S. Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (ELUs). Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07289 (2015). · arXiv
  5. Maaten, L. V. D. & Hinton, G. Visualizing data using t-SNE. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9, 2579–2605 (2008).
  6. Reddi, S. J., Kale, S. & Kumar, S. On the convergence of adam and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09237 (2019). · arXiv
  7. Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980 (2014). · arXiv
  8. Zeiler, M. D. ADADELTA: an adaptive learning rate method. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5701 (2012). · arXiv
  9. Vinh, N. X., Epps, J. & Bailey, J. Information theoretic measures for clusterings comparison: Variants, properties, normalization and correction for chance. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11, 2837–2854 (2010).
  10. Alexander, S. & Joydeep, G. Cluster ensembles—a knowledge reuse framework for combining multiple partitions. J. Mach. Learn Res 3, 583–617 (2003).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 135

Related

Metadata

Authors
Lin, X., Tian, T., Wei, Z., & Hakonarson, H.
Affiliations
  • New Jersey Institute of Technology (US)
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
Corresponding author
Wei, Zhi
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-12-13
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
7705-7705
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-022-35031-9
PMC
PMC9748135
OpenAlex
W4311232381
Cited by
135
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
7.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR003017)
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 › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Keywords
single-cell multi-omics, multimodal deep learning, cell type annotation, single-cell sequencing
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Multiomics, Computer Simulation, Cluster Analysis, 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