Transcriptome-wide analysis of differential expression in perturbation atlases
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Single-cell CRISPR screens such as Perturb-seq enable transcriptomic profiling of genetic perturbations at scale. However, the data produced by these screens are noisy, and many effects may go undetected. Here we introduce transcriptome-wide analysis of differential expression (TRADE)—a statistical model for the distribution of true differential expression effects that accounts for estimation error appropriately. TRADE estimates the ‘transcriptome-wide impact’, which quantifies the total effect of a perturbation across the transcriptome. Analyzing several large Perturb-seq datasets, we show that many transcriptional effects remain undetected in standard analyses but emerge in aggregate using TRADE. A typical gene perturbation affects an estimated 45 genes, whereas a typical essential gene affects over 500. We find moderate consistency of perturbation effects across cell types, identify perturbations where transcriptional responses vary qualitatively across dosage levels and clarify the relationship between genetic and transcriptomic correlations across neuropsychiatric disorders. Transcriptome-wide analysis of differential expression (TRADE) is a broadly applicable tool for characterizing patterns of differential expression across the genome.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 34 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
In simulations, inferred distributions closely matched simulated true distributions, except slight overestimation of density at zero.
“The inferred distributions closely matched the simulated true distributions, except that they slightly overestimated the density at zero.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Many transcriptional effects remain undetected in standard analyses but emerge in aggregate using TRADE.
“Analyzing multiple large Perturb-seq datasets, we show that many transcriptional effects remain undetected in standard analyses but emerge in aggregate using TRADE.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
A typical essential gene perturbation affects over 500 genes.
“whereas a typical essential gene affects over 500.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
A typical gene perturbation affects an estimated 45 genes.
“A typical gene perturbation affects an estimated 45 genes”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In K562-Essential, GATA1 knockdown had 108 cells versus 7 for EIF4A3.
“For example, in the K562-Essential dataset, 108 cells received GATA1 knockdown versus just 7 for EIF4A3.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data
Some perturbations show transcriptional responses that are qualitatively different as a function of dosage.
“find examples of perturbations where transcriptional responses are not only larger in magnitude, but also qualitatively different, as a function of dosage.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Using limmaTrend for TRADE estimates resulted in more severe downward bias.
“We explored TRADE estimates generated from limmaTrend14 finding that this resulted in more severe downward bias (Supplementary Note 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [14] Law, C. W., Chen, Y., Shi, W. & Smyth, G. K. voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biol. 15, R29 (2014). source
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data
Number of cells per perturbation varies widely due to technical features of pooled screening.
“The number of cells per perturbation varies widely due to technical features of pooled screening.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Perturbations with cell type-dependent effects were identified.
“We identify perturbations with cell type-dependent effects”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Stronger perturbations had consistently larger TI.
“As expected, stronger perturbations had consistently larger transcriptome-wide impact (Fig. 5A).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Genes with strong growth effect in K562 are enriched for perturbation impact by 4.2x.
“Similarly, genes with a strong growth effect in K562 cells (roughly, those that are essential in culture) are strongly enriched for perturbation impact, by 4.2x, while being depleted for perturbation response by 0.7x.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Without accounting for sample size, GATA1 and EIF4A3 perturbations apparently produce similar effect size distributions.
“Without accounting for this, both perturbations apparently produce similar effect size distributions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
TI estimates were minimal in negative control analysis of non-targeting guide RNAs.
“We confirmed that our transcriptome-wide impact estimates were minimal in a negative control analysis of non-targeting guide RNAs (Supplementary Fig. 7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Larger discrepancies between observed and estimated effect size distributions occur for perturbations with lower sample size.
“More generally, we observed larger discrepancies between observed and estimated effect size distributions for perturbations with lower sample size (Supplementary Fig. 6).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Genes with strong growth effect in K562 are depleted for perturbation response by 0.7x.
“Similarly, genes with a strong growth effect in K562 cells (roughly, those that are essential in culture) are strongly enriched for perturbation impact, by 4.2x, while being depleted for perturbation response by 0.7x.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For dTAG depletion of Sox9 and Polycomb, TI dosage-response curve was nonlinear.
“For dTAG depletion of Sox9 (Supplementary Table 11) and Polycomb (Supplementary Table 13), the transcriptome-wide impact dosage-response curve was nonlinear.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Constrained genes are enriched for perturbation impact by 1.6x.
“We found that constrained genes, which are depleted of loss-of-function variation in the general population, are enriched for perturbation impact by 1.6x, consistent with their functional importance (Figure 3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Median TI correlation between replicate experiments was 0.90.
“However, the median transcriptome-wide impact correlation between replicates was 0.90, implying excellent replicability (Fig. 4B).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In K562-Essential, perturbations with significant TI were identifiable across a wide range of sample sizes.
“We compared transcriptome-wide impact estimates with sample size in the K562-Essential experiment, and found that in general, we were able to identify perturbations with significant transcriptome-wide impact across a wide range of sample sizes (Supplementary Fig. 9).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Other perturbations, such as NIFK knockdown, had higher correlations within K562/Jurkat and RPE1/HepG2 than other cell type pairs.
“Other perturbations, such as knockdown of NIFK, had much higher correlations within the pairs K562/Jurkat and RPE1/HepG2 than other cell type pairs (Fig. 4E).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
On average, TI was larger in RPE1 than in the other three cell lines.
“On average, transcriptome-wide impact was larger in the RPE1 cell line than in the other three.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Some perturbations, such as DDX41 knockdown, had high correlations across all four cell types.
“Some perturbations, such as knockdown of DDX41, had high correlations across all four cell types (Fig. 4E).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
241 perturbations had greater-than-expected effects in specific cell types (K562:47; RPE1:118; Jurkat:10; HepG2:66).
“Using a liberal threshold (Methods), we identified 241 such perturbations (K562: 47; RPE1: 118; Jurkat: 10; HepG2: 66) (Supplementary Table 8).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For well-powered perturbations with TI > ~0.01, downsampling caused almost no decrease in TI.
“For well-powered perturbations with estimated TI greater than around 0.01, there was almost no decrease (Supplementary Fig. 8).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Genes in Cluster1 had differences in TI across cell types approximately twice as large as genes in Cluster2 (p=4e-8, paired t-test).
“We observed that genes in Cluster 1 (i.e. with cell-type-preferential correlations) had differences in transcriptome-wide impact across cell types that were approximately twice as large as genes in Cluster 2 (p = 4e-8, paired t-test).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Two patterns of inter-cell-type correlations were observed across perturbations.
“Across perturbations, we observed two patterns of inter-cell-type correlations (Fig. 4D).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
TI was correlated across cell types (average correlation=0.62).
“As expected, transcriptome-wide impact was correlated across cell types (average correlation = 0.62; Supplementary Fig. 17).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Essential gene perturbations in all four cell types had median πDEG greater than 500.
“Some genetic perturbations had much larger πDEG; in particular, knockdown of essential gene perturbations in all four cell types analyzed had median πDEG greater than 500 (Fig. 2D).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
TI estimates were more consistent across K562-GenomeWide and K562-Essential than number of significant DEGs (TI R2=59.7%; DEG R2=28.4%).
“Similarly, examining perturbations which are shared between the K562-GenomeWide and K562-Essential experiments, we found that estimates of transcriptome-wide impact were far more consistent across experiments than the number of significant differentially expressed genes (transcriptome-wide impact R2 = 59.7%; number of DEGs R2 = 28.4%; Supplementary Fig. 10).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
σ (average non-null log2 fold change) is stable across genes and cell types, mostly in [0.1,1].
“We find that σ is stable across genes and cell types, with values mostly in the range [0.1,1] (Supplementary Note 3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Constrained genes are depleted for perturbation response by 0.4x.
“On the other hand, they are strongly depleted for perturbation response, by 0.4x, suggesting that across genes, population-level constraint is mirrored by regulatory robustness.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Cytoskeleton-localizing genes are modestly depleted of perturbation impact (0.7x).
“We observed only a modest perturbation impact enrichments for genes that were localized to the nucleus (1.3x), despite their direct role in transcriptional regulation; cytoskeleton-localizing genes were modestly depleted of perturbation impact (0.7x).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Median correlation between log-fold-change point estimates (not using TRADE) between replicate experiments was only 0.16.
“The median correlation between log-fold-change point estimates - not using TRADE - was only 0.16, apparently suggesting low replicability (Fig. 4B).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Nucleus-localized genes show modest perturbation impact enrichment (1.3x).
“We observed only a modest perturbation impact enrichments for genes that were localized to the nucleus (1.3x), despite their direct role in transcriptional regulation; cytoskeleton-localizing genes were modestly depleted of perturbation impact (0.7x).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For K562-GenomeWide, median πDEG was 45.
“For the K562-GenomeWide experiment, the median πDEG was 45, suggesting that typically, tens of genes are required to explain the bulk of the transcriptome-wide impact (Fig. 2D).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Inferred correlations did not vary strongly with essentiality.
“A potential limitation of this analysis is its reliance on perturbations that are essential in all four cell lines; however, inferred correlations did not vary strongly with essentiality (Supplementary Fig. 20).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Unlike Spearman correlation estimates, TRADE correlation estimates were larger than between-condition genetic correlations.
“As a result, unlike the Spearman correlation estimates, the TRADE correlation estimates were larger than the between-condition genetic correlations (Fig. 6A, 6B).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Significant genes capture only a fraction of TI in large-scale Perturb-Seq experiments.
“We found that significant genes capture only a fraction of transcriptome-wide impact in large-scale Perturb-Seq experiments.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
CRISPRi knockdown of 25 essential genes in K562 generally showed similar dose-response curves with varying non-linearity.
“We generally observed similar dose-response curves for CRISPRi knockdown of 25 essential genes in K562 cells, with varying degrees of non-linearity (Fig. 5A, Supplementary Table 15, Supplementary Fig. 22).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
TRADE estimated lower TI correlations between psychiatric diagnoses and IBD, a non-psychiatric control trait.
“In contrast, TRADE appropriately estimated lower transcriptome-wide impact correlations between psychiatric diagnoses and irritable bowel disease (IBD), a non-psychiatric control trait (Supplementary Table 17).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Compared to Euclidean distance, TI produced a more coherent cell-type hierarchy of PBMCs in OneK1K.
“Indeed, we found that compared to Euclidean distance, transcriptome-wide impact produced a more coherent cell-type hierarchy of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in the OneK1K dataset33,34 (Methods; Supplementary Fig. 26; Supplementary Table 19).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [33] Yazar, S. et al. Single-cell eQTL mapping identifies cell type–specific genetic control of autoimmune disease. Science 376, eabf3041 (2022). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [34] Kang, J. B. et al. Mapping the dynamic genetic regulatory architecture of HLA genes at single-cell resolution. Nat. Genet. 55, 2255–2268 (2023). source
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data
Response to BCR knockdown was highly correlated across all dosage levels despite substantial differences in magnitude.
“For example, the response to BCR knockdown was highly correlated across all dosage levels, despite substantial differences in the magnitude of responses (Fig. 5B).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Directly estimating the distribution of differential expression effects would address these limitations.
“Directly estimating the distribution of differential expression effects would address these issues.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given
TRADE is a statistical model for the distribution of true differential expression effects that accounts for estimation error.
“We introduce TRanscriptome-wide Analysis of Differential Expression (TRADE), a statistical model for the distribution of true differential expression effects that accounts for estimation error appropriately.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
TRADE can compare transcriptomic effects of genetic perturbations across contexts and dosages despite differences in power.
“An advantage of our approach is its ability to compare the transcriptomic effects of genetic perturbations across contexts and dosages despite differences in power.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
TRADE correlation inference is unbiased.
“We refer to this quantity as the “transcriptome-wide impact correlation” (Methods) and demonstrate that correlation inference with TRADE is unbiased (Supplementary Fig. 16).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Modeling sampling variance is valuable because uncorrelated sampling variation causes downward bias in correlation estimates.
“This difference underscores the value of modeling sampling variance when estimating effect-size correlations (as uncorrelated sampling variation causes downward bias in correlation estimates; Supplementary Note 4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
TRADE perturbation impact and response enrichment estimators are approximately unbiased, including for small gene sets.
“In simulations, we confirmed that the TRADE perturbation impact and response enrichment estimators are approximately unbiased, including for small gene sets (Supplementary Fig. 14), and we performed further validation with positive-control gene sets19,20 (Supplementary Fig. 15).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [19] Crow, M., Lim, N., Ballouz, S., Pavlidis, P. & Gillis, J. Predictability of human differential gene expression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 6491–6500 (2019). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [20] Lin, Y. et al. Evaluating stably expressed genes in single cells. Gigascience 8, giz106 (2019). source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Significant genes do not capture the bulk of transcriptome-wide impact.
“Our analyses suggest that significant genes do not capture the bulk of transcriptome wide impact.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
If all downstream genes have identical response curves up to a constant, cross-dosage correlation is exactly one.
“If all downstream genes have identical response curves (up to multiplication by a constant), then the effect of a partial depletion is a fixed fraction of the effect of a full depletion, leading to a cross-dosage correlation of exactly one (Fig. 5C; Supplementary Note 5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
If response curves vary between target genes, cross-dosage correlation is less than one, to an extent depending on variability.
“However, if the response curve varies between target genes, the correlation is less than 1, to an extent that depends on the variability of response curves (Fig. 5C; Supplementary Note 5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
A threshold where response curves change abruptly leads to a large change in correlation magnitude across the dosage threshold.
“The presence of a threshold, where the response curves change abruptly, leads to a large change in correlation magnitude across the dosage threshold.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
In case-control data, TRADE changes interpretation of a key analysis of neuropsychiatric conditions.
“In a case-control as opposed to perturbational dataset, we found that the same advantages apply, and that our approach changes the interpretation of a key analysis of neuropsychiatric conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Transcriptional state of individual cells may vary in ways poorly captured in pseudobulk.
“On the other hand, the transcriptional state of individual cells may vary in ways that are poorly captured in pseudo-bulk (for example, due to the presence of multiple cell types)38.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [38] Lopez, R., Regier, J., Cole, M. B., Jordan, M. I. & Yosef, N. Deep generative modeling for single-cell transcriptomics. Nat. Methods 15, 1053–1058 (2018). source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
πDEG can contextualize single-gene vs cell-state differential expression approaches by quantifying concentration vs spread.
“Estimates from TRADE, in particular πDEG, can contextualize these approaches by quantifying the degree to which differential expression is concentrated in specific target genes, versus spread across the transcriptome.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Gandal et al conducted large-scale DE analysis of post-mortem brain tissue comparing neuropsychiatric conditions with controls.
“Gandal et al29 conducted a large-scale differential expression analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from individuals with neuropsychiatric conditions, comparing them with neurotypical controls.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [29] Gandal, M. J. et al. Shared molecular neuropathology across major psychiatric disorders parallels polygenic overlap. Science 359, 693–697 (2018). source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisenone given
Conventional significance-testing framework may conflate biological differences with differences in experimental design or sample size.
“However, a conventional significance-testing framework may conflate biological differences with differences in experimental design or sample size.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Weak and strong perturbations have qualitatively different transcriptional consequences.
“For dTag depletion of Sox9 (Supplementary Table 12) and Polycomb (Supplementary Table 14), transcriptome-wide impact correlations decayed smoothly with the difference in dosage, and the smallest and largest perturbations were only moderately correlated (r=0.60, 0.48), implying that weak and strong perturbations have qualitatively different transcriptional consequences.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Even haploinsufficient genes such as SOX9 can have qualitatively different effects as a function of dosage.
“More generally, even haploinsufficient genes (such as SOX9) can have qualitatively different effects as a function of dosage.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Modeling pseudobulk counts prevents pseudo-replication bias.
“On the one hand, modeling pseudobulk counts has been demonstrated to prevent pseudo-replication bias36,37.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [36] Squair, J. W. et al. Confronting false discoveries in single-cell differential expression. Nat. Commun. 12, 5692 (2021). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [37] Soneson, C. & Robinson, M. D. Bias, robustness and scalability in single-cell differential expression analysis. Nat. Methods 15, 255–261 (2018). source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Stronger depletions of Sox9 and Polycomb produce progressively larger cellular effects.
“These genes are haploinsufficient (pLI = 117) indicating that 50% depletion is deleterious; our results suggest that stronger depletions nonetheless produce progressively larger cellular effects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
Simulations recapitulated the three correlation patterns with different sets of response curves.
“In simulations, we recapitulated the three correlation patterns described above with different sets of response curves (Fig. 5C; Methods).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
These estimates imply that at least in this study, most DE effects replicate between assays.
“These estimates imply that at least in this study, most differential expression effects replicate between assays.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Modeling distribution of DE effects via TRADE addresses these limitations.
“We showed that these limitations can be addressed by modeling the distribution of differential expression effects explicitly via TRADE.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
Including fitted parameters for both intercept and slope in the regression means that cell-type-specific effects were not identified only because one cell type exhibits stronger effects overall.
“Notably, this regression included fitted parameters for both intercept and slope, meaning that cell-type-specific effects were not identified only because one cell type exhibits stronger effects overall.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductcitation
Using a fine grid of half-uniform mixture components, rather than zero-centered uniform components, allows for estimation of asymmetric effect size distributions.
“For mixture components, we used a fine grid of uniform distributions with one extremum at zero as mixture components (“half-uniform”) rather than zero-centered uniform mixture components, to allow for estimation of asymmetric effect size distributions”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
Because the datasets analyzed do not contain within-experiment cell type heterogeneity, TRADE does not currently model cell type variability.
“Notably, because the datasets presently analyzed do not contain within-experiment cell type heterogeneity, TRADE at present does not model cell type variability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given
TRADE shifts tradeoff by allowing stable quantification of metrics at shallower sampling depths.
“TRADE shifts the balance in this tradeoff by allowing stable quantification of highly informative metrics including transcriptome-wide impact, correlations between perturbations, and context-dependent effects at much shallower sampling depths.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 36
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataTI estimates were robust with slight downward bias.
“Estimates of the transcriptome-wide impact (Fig. 1C) were robust, with slight downward bias.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataDownward bias in TI results from inadequate power to detect very small effects at finite sample size; bias disappears at increased sample size.
“The downward bias results from inadequate power to detect very small effects at finite sample size, even aggregating power across genes; at increased sample size, the bias disappears (Supplementary Fig. 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTI correlations were weaker between K562 and HepG2 (0.64), Jurkat and HepG2 (0.69), and substantially weaker between K562 and RPE1 (0.40) and Jurkat and RPE1 (0.56).
“There were weaker correlations between K562 and HepG2 (median: 0.64) and between Jurkat and HepG2 (median: 0.69), and substantially weaker correlations between K562 and RPE1 (0.40) and Jurkat and RPE1 (0.56).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFraction of TI explained by FDR-significant effects: K562-GenomeWide 36%, K562-Essential 18%, RPE1-Essential 35%, Jurkat-Essential 13%, HepG2-Essential 14%.
“In the K562-GenomeWide experiment, 36% of transcriptome-wide impact was explained by FDR-significant effects (Fig. 2C); in K562-Essential, 18%; in RPE1-Essential, 35%; in Jurkat-Essential: 13%; and in HepG2-Essential, 14%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn downsampling K562-GenomeWide to 50% gemgroups, signal in significant genes decreased substantially but TI estimate decreased only slightly.
“We conducted a downsampling analysis, repeating our analysis of the K562-GenomeWide experiment using only 50% of the 10x Genomics gemgroups. Whereas the signal in significant genes decreased substantially, our estimate of the transcriptome-wide impact decreased only slightly (Fig. 2C), consistent with the slight downward biased observed in simulations (Supplementary Fig. 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTRADE estimates GATA1 knockdown has large TI (0.4, p=9e-12) while EIF4A4 knockdown lacks evidence of broad TI (0.004, p=0.12).
“However, TRADE accounts for the difference in sample size and estimates that whereas GATA1 knockdown has a large transcriptional effect (transcriptome-wide impact = 0.4, p = 9e-12), EIF4A4 knockdown lacks evidence of broad transcriptome-wide effects (transcriptome-wide impact = 0.004, p = 0.12) (Fig. 2A,B).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataGenes highly expressed in K562 are enriched for both perturbation impact (2.3x) and perturbation response (4.4x).
“In contrast, genes that are highly expressed in K562 cells are strongly enriched for both perturbation impact (2.3x) and perturbation response (4.4x), supporting a correlation between absolute expression and functional importance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataWeak-to-moderate perturbations of Sox9 and Polycomb caused relatively small TI, whereas strong perturbations caused disproportionately large TI.
“Weak-to-moderate perturbations of these proteins caused relatively small transcriptome-wide effects, whereas strong perturbations caused disproportionately large transcriptome-wide effects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingcitationSome identified cell-type-specific perturbations are known indispensable for that cell type (GATA1 for K562, HMGCR for Jurkat), but most had no previously documented explanation.
“Some of these perturbations are known to be indispensable for their corresponding cell type, including GATA1 for erythroid cells such as K56221 and HMGCR for T-cells such as Jurkat22, but most had no previously documented explanation for their cell-type dependent effects.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [21] Weiss, M. J., Keller, G. & Orkin, S. H. Novel insights into erythroid development revealed through in vitro differentiation of GATA-1 embryonic stem cells. Genes Dev. 8, 1184–1197 (1994). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [22] Lacher, S. M. et al. HMG-CoA reductase promotes protein prenylation and therefore is indispensible for T-cell survival. Cell Death Dis. 8, e2824 (2017). source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataA few perturbations had low between-experiment TI correlations; most had very low TI, so their correlations are expected to be noisy.
“A few perturbations did have low between-experiment transcriptome-wide impact correlations; most of these had very low transcriptome-wide impact, and thus, their correlations are expected to be noisy (Supplementary Fig. 18).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAmong 1660 perturbations with significant TI in all four cell types, TI correlation was highest between K562 and Jurkat (median 0.74) and between HepG2 and RPE1 (0.75).
“The transcriptome-wide impact correlation was highest between K562 and Jurkat (median: 0.74) and between HepG2 and RPE1 (median: 0.75) (Fig. 4C; Supplementary Fig. 19).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataClustering perturbations with GMM found 44% in Cluster1 with selectively higher correlations between similar cell types (mean within similar 0.61; outside 0.35) and 56% in Cluster2 with high correlations across all cell types (mean within similar 0.75; outside 0.66).
“Clustering these perturbations with a Gaussian mixture model (Methods), we found that 44% of perturbations belonged to a cluster with selectively higher correlations between more similar cell types (Cluster1, mean correlation within similar cell type pairs: 0.61; outside similar pairs: 0.35), whereas 56% of the perturbations belonged to a cluster with high correlations across all cell types (Clust”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataGenes with more efficient CRISPRi knockdown were not enriched for perturbation impact, suggesting enrichments not driven by guide differences.
“Genes with more efficient CRISPRi knockdown were not enriched for perturbation impact, suggesting that enrichments are not driven by differences between guides (Supplementary Fig. 15).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor dTag depletion of Sox9 and Polycomb, TI correlations decayed smoothly with dosage difference, and smallest and largest perturbations were only moderately correlated (r=0.60, 0.48).
“For dTag depletion of Sox9 (Supplementary Table 12) and Polycomb (Supplementary Table 14), transcriptome-wide impact correlations decayed smoothly with the difference in dosage, and the smallest and largest perturbations were only moderately correlated (r=0.60, 0.48), implying that weak and strong perturbations have qualitatively different transcriptional consequences.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIntegrating all diagnosis pairs and technologies, TI correlations were substantially larger than sample Spearman correlations, with increase for 9/9 psychiatric trait pairs.
“Integrating data from all diagnosis pairs and technologies, we found that transcriptome-wide impact correlations were substantially larger than sample Spearman correlations, with an increase for 9/9 psychiatric trait pairs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataInferred bivariate effect size distributions showed effects either null in both conditions or positively correlated; little evidence of negatively correlated component or large numbers of condition-specific genes.
“Visualizing the inferred bivariate effect size distributions revealed that in general, effects are either null in both conditions or positively correlated; there was little evidence of a negatively correlated component or large numbers of condition-specific genes (Supplementary Fig. 24).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataDosage affects not only magnitude of transcriptome-wide effect but also which genes are affected.
“In dose-response experiments, we found that dosage affects not only the magnitude of the transcriptome-wide effect, but also the genes that are affected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataResponse to GATA1 knockdown was highly correlated among all but the weakest perturbation, which was only moderately correlated with the strongest.
“The response to GATA1 knockdown was highly correlated among all but the weakest perturbation, which was only moderately correlated with the strongest perturbation (Fig. 5B).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor autism, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, TI correlation between microarray and RNA-seq cohorts was 0.96, 0.91, and 0.78 respectively.
“The transcriptome-wide impact correlation was 0.96, 0.91, and 0.78 for autism, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia respectively (Supplementary Fig. 25).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe bivariate Gaussian mixture model identified two components: one with mean within-similar-cell-type correlation 0.75 and outside 0.66, and another with mean within 0.61 and outside 0.35.
“including one component with relatively high correlations within and outside of similar cell types (mean correlation within = 0.75, mean correlation outside = 0.66) and one component with lower correlations outside of similar cell types (mean correlation within = 0.61, mean correlation outside = 0.35).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataIn simulations, TRADE-generated posterior-mean effect size estimates had lower mean squared error than DESeq2 effect size estimates.
“We briefly explored TRADE-generated posterior-mean effect size estimates in simulations, finding that these posterior-mean estimates had lower mean squared error than DESeq2 effect size estimates (Supplementary Figure 5)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationExisting methods for capturing aspects of the DE effect distribution have conceptual limitations, including lack of clear estimand, ambiguous units, or finite-sample bias.
“However, while these approaches are useful, they have conceptual limitations. Some lack a clear estimand (such as the running-sum GSEA statistic); some have ambiguous units (such as the energy distance); some are biased at finite sample size (such as the proportion of DE genes π in iDEA, see O’Connor et al11).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 6 sources checked- cites [6] Replogle, J. M. et al. Mapping information-rich genotype-phenotype landscapes with genome-scale Perturb-seq. Cell 185, 2559–2575.e28 (2022). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [7] Peidli, S. et al. scPerturb: harmonized single-cell perturbation data. Nat. Methods 21, 531–540 (2024). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [8] Subramanian, A. et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15545–15550 (2005). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [9] Plaisier, S. B., Taschereau, R., Wong, J. A. & Graeber, T. G. Rank–rank hypergeometric overlap: identification of statistically significant overlap between gene-expression signatures. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e169 (2010). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [10] Ma, Y. et al. Integrative differential expression and gene set enrichment analysis using summary statistics for scRNA-seq studies. Nat. Commun. 11, 1585 (2020). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [11] O’Connor, L. J. The distribution of common-variant effect sizes. Nat. Genet. 53, 1243–1249 (2021). source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningPerturb-seq data are noisy and many true effects may go undetected because the number of cells per perturbation is limited.
“However, the data produced by these screens are noisy, and many effects may go undetected.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
“Perturb-seq allows thousands of genetic perturbations to be tested in a single pool of cells, but the number of cells per perturbation (the sample size) is limited, such that many true effects may not be detected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationGWAS power is limited, but statistical methods can estimate SNP-heritability and characterize genetic architecture even when few associations are significant.
“Even when genome-wide significant associations are few, statistical methods can be used to estimate “SNP-heritability,” a measure of the total genetic effect5, and to characterize nearly every aspect of genetic architecture.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [5] Yang, J. et al. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat. Genet. 42, 565–569 (2010). source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Study design and conductown dataTRADE-derived estimators of transcriptome-wide impact, effective number of DE genes, gene-set enrichments, and correlation are unbiased at finite sample size.
“TRADE also estimates gene-set enrichments, correlations between different experiments, and the effective number of differentially expressed genes, all of which are unbiased at finite sample size (Methods; Supplementary Fig. 1,12,14,16).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationPerturb-Seq combines single-cell RNA sequencing with high-throughput CRISPR screens.
“A particularly scalable approach to differential expression is Perturb-Seq, which combines single-cell RNA sequencing with a high-throughput CRISPR screen1-4.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked- cites [1] Dixit, A. et al. Perturb-seq: dissecting molecular circuits with scalable single-cell RNA profiling of pooled genetic screens. Cell 167, 1853–1866.e17 (2016). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [2] Adamson, B. et al. A multiplexed single-cell CRISPR screening platform enables systematic dissection of the unfolded protein response. Cell 167, 1867–1882.e21 (2016). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [3] Jaitin, D. A. et al. Dissecting immune circuits by linking CRISPR-pooled screens with single-cell RNA-seq. Cell 167, 1883–1896.e15 (2016). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [4] Datlinger, P. et al. Pooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout. Nat. Methods 14, 297–301 (2017). source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningBecause dataset targeted common essential genes, many more cell-type-specific effects are expected in a larger atlas.
“As this dataset targeted primarily common essential genes which are expected to be important for growth across most cell types, there are expected to be many more examples of cell-type-specific effects in a larger cellular perturbation atlas.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataWhen a gene has a cell type specific function, perturbing it in the relevant cell type causes both larger magnitude and different pattern of effects across genes.
“This indicates that when a gene has a cell type specific function, perturbing that gene in the relevant cell type causes not only a larger magnitude of effect, but also a different pattern of effects across genes (Supplementary Fig. 21).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataπDEG estimation procedure was validated in simulations and downsampling.
“We validated our estimation procedure for πDEG in simulations (Supplementary Fig. 12) and in a downsampling analysis (Supplementary Fig. 13).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningOne explanation for higher correlations among neuropsychiatric conditions is that transcriptomic effects are often downstream of condition liability and shared.
“One explanation for this difference is that transcriptomic effects are often downstream of condition liability, and these downstream effects are often shared between neuropsychiatric conditions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningTI may be a suitable distance metric for cell-type variation because it is unbiased at finite sample size and computable from summary statistics.
“Transcriptome-wide impact may be a suitable distance metric for such analyses, as it is unbiased at finite sample size (unlike the commonly used Euclidean distance, Supplementary Note 6) and can be computed from differential expression summary statistics.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAcross cell types or replicate experiments, concordance between estimated effect sizes is attenuated due to sampling variation, but true effect sizes are often highly concordant.
“Across cell types or even replicate experiments, the concordance between estimated effect sizes is attenuated due to sampling variation, but in many cases, the true effect sizes are highly concordant.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationGandal et al found DE effects correlated between conditions, paralleling genetic correlations.
“They found that differential expression effects were correlated between conditions, and that these correlations paralleled those between the genetic effects on those conditions (the genetic correlation).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [29] Gandal, M. J. et al. Shared molecular neuropathology across major psychiatric disorders parallels polygenic overlap. Science 359, 693–697 (2018). source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenSox9 and Polycomb are haploinsufficient (pLI=117), indicating 50% depletion is deleterious.
“These genes are haploinsufficient (pLI = 117) indicating that 50% depletion is deleterious; our results suggest that stronger depletions nonetheless produce progressively larger cellular effects.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationGenetic correlation was estimated with REML accounting for sampling variation, whereas transcriptomic effect correlation was estimated as sample Spearman correlation between DE point estimates, which is downwardly biased in a sample size dependent manner.
“A notable difference between the transcriptomic and genetic analyses in this study is that the genetic correlation was estimated with a REML approach that accounts for sampling variation30, whereas the transcriptomic effect correlation was estimated as the sample Spearman correlation between differential expression point estimates, which is downwardly biased in a sample size dependent manner (”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [30] Lee, S. H., Yang, J., Goddard, M. E., Visscher, P. M. & Wray, N. R. Estimation of pleiotropy between complex diseases using single-nucleotide polymorphism-derived genomic relationships and restricted maximum likelihood. Bioinformatics 28, 2540–2542 (2012). source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationNaqvi et al found a subset of Sox9 targets sensitive at partial dosage depletions, whereas a larger set affected only at full dosage depletions.
“Indeed, Naqvi et al26 found that a subset of Sox9 targets are sensitive at partial dosage depletions, whereas a much larger set of targets are affected only at full dosage depletions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [26] Naqvi, S. et al. Precise modulation of transcription factor levels identifies features underlying dosage sensitivity. Nat. Genet. 55, 841–851 (2023). source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenTRADE relies on predefined labels and cannot cluster cells into cell types.
“However, a limitation of TRADE is that it relies upon predefined labels and cannot be used to cluster cells into cell types.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSome biological processes are better assayed using alternative modalities (splicing, chromatin, protein, imaging).
“In addition, some biological processes are better assayed using alternative modalities, including mRNA splicing, chromatin state, protein level, and imaging, all of which are now being studied at scale with single cell CRISPR screens39-44.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 6 sources checked- cites [39] Rubin, A. J. et al. Coupled single-cell CRISPR screening and epigenomic profiling reveals causal gene regulatory networks. Cell 176, 361–376.e17 (2019). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [40] Feldman, D. et al. Optical pooled screens in human cells. Cell 179, 787–799.e17 (2019). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [41] Gu, J. et al. CRISPRmap: sequencing-free optical pooled screens mapping multi-omic phenotypes in cells and tissue. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.26.572587 (2023). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [42] Binan, L. et al. Simultaneous CRISPR screening and spatial transcriptomics reveals intracellular, intercellular, and functional transcriptional circuits. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.30.569494 (2023). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [43] Xu, Z., Sziraki, A., Lee, J., Zhou, W. & Cao, J. Dissecting key regulators of transcriptome kinetics through scalable single-cell RNA profiling of pooled CRISPR screens. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 1218–1223 (2024). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [44] Kudo, T. et al. Multiplexed, image-based pooled screens in primary cells and tissues with PerturbView. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02391-0 (2024). source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone givenFor genetic perturbations, parameters such as TI are likely driven by the pattern of causal regulatory connections (GRN).
“For genetic perturbations, parameters such as transcriptome-wide impact are likely driven by the pattern of causal regulatory connections between genes, i.e. the gene regulatory network (GRN).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataOn day 7 after transduction, cells were measured to be more than 90% GFP positive.
“On day 7 post-transduction, cells were measured to be >90% GFP positive”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenCells were filtered for quality by removing cells with low UMI content (Jurkat: >1750 UMIs, HepG2: >3000 UMIs) and high mitochondrial RNA content (Jurkat: <14%, HepG2: <18%).
“Cells were filtered for quality to remove cells with low UMI content (Jurkat: > 1750 UMIs, HepG2: > 3000 UMIs) and high mitochondrial RNA content (Jurkat: < 14%, HepG2: <18%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone givenEstimates of the fraction of signal in FDR-significant genes are expected to be upwardly biased by winner's curse.
“we note that such estimates are expected to be upwardly biased by winner’s curse.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenGFP-positive singlets were isolated by FACS in order to decrease cell doublets in the single-cell RNA-sequencing.
“In order to decrease cell doublets in the single-cell RNA-sequencing, GFP positive singlets were isolated by FACS”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningChoosing Sg as a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries equal to the variance of the individual estimated effects is appropriate when each estimate is derived from a different experiment, as is the case in these analyses.
“We choose Sg to be a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries equal to the variance of the individual estimated effects. This choice is appropriate when each estimate is derived from a different experiment, which is the case in our analyses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe quality filters removed 7408 cells from the Jurkat-Essential experiment (262,956 retained) and 15,952 cells from the HepG2-Essential experiment (145,473 retained).
“These filters removed 7408 cells from the Jurkat-Essential experiment (262956 cells retained), and 15952 cells from the HepG2-Essential experiment (145473 cells retained).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Study design and conductreasoningRemoving the null-biased prior prevents bias in the distribution estimate.
“We removed the null-biased prior in order to prevent bias in our distribution estimate.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Using a null-biased prior is crucial for accurately computing the local false sign rate, but is less important for estimating the effect size distribution itself.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataOn day 3 after transduction, the infection rate was measured as 7% using GFP as a transduction marker.
“On day 3 post-transduction, an infection rate of 7% was measured based on GFP as a marker of transduction”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationStephens found that the half-uniform mixture model is sufficiently flexible to model realistic effect size distributions.
“Stephens 13 found that these this model is sufficiently flexible to model realistic effect size distributions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] Stephens, M. False discovery rates: a new deal. Biostatistics 18, 275–294 (2016).
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe transcriptome-wide impact estimates have a slight downward bias, which may lead to slight over-shrinkage for underpowered perturbations.
“Our estimates could be used in this way, although we caution that slight downward bias in our transcriptome-wide impact estimates (Supplementary Figure 1) may lead to slight over-shrinkage for underpowered perturbations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningThe targeted low infection rate of about 10% was chosen to reduce the chance that a single cell would be infected by multiple viruses.
“This low rate was chosen to reduce the chances of a single cell being infected by multiple viruses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenCells were maintained at a coverage of more than 1000 cells per library element throughout the screen.
“Cells were maintained at a coverage of >1000 cells per library element for the duration of the screen.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningIn our analyses, the influence of pseudoreplication bias is expected to be minimal because the pseudobulk observation units are different sequencing batches from the same cell line, with no variability from supra-cellular sampling units.
“Because there is no variability due to supra-cellular sampling unit (i.e. animal, donor, etc.), the influence of pseudoreplication bias is expected to be minimal.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningThe adaptive grid procedure produces a set of covariance matrices that attempt to tile all possible bivariate relationships between the two perturbations.
“This procedure produces a set of covariance matrices that attempt to tile all possible bivariate relationships between the two perturbations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: mash was designed primarily for multivariate experiments with several conditions, where specifying all possible covariance patterns is not feasible.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone givenThe perturbation response enrichment approach is expected to be approximately unbiased for most gene sets.
“This approach is expected to be approximately unbiased for most gene sets.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationFailure to account for biological variability across supra-cellular sampling units can lead to overestimation of effects, a phenomenon called pseudoreplication bias.
“In single cell differential expression analyses, a failure to account for biological variability across supra-cellular sampling units (i.e. animal, donor, etc.) can lead to overestimation of effects; this phenomenon is referred to as “pseudoreplication bias” 36,37.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [36] Squair, J. W. et al. Confronting false discoveries in single-cell differential expression. Nat. Commun. 12, 5692 (2021). source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [37] Soneson, C. & Robinson, M. D. Bias, robustness and scalability in single-cell differential expression analysis. Nat. Methods 15, 255–261 (2018). source
Not checked in the free run.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The Gaussian model used by ash is appropriate for the distribution of differential expression effects.
“whether the Gaussian model assumed by ash is appropriate.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Genetic effects on neuropsychiatric conditions are usually causal.
“Because genetic effects are usually causal, this parallel was interpreted as evidence that transcriptomic overlap reflects upstream, disease-causing processes rather than confounding or downstream effects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Pseudobulk mean RNA expression level adequately captures the transcriptional state relevant to differential expression.
“A key limitation of TRADE is that it currently uses only a simple readout from single cell RNA-seq experiments, the pseudo-bulk mean RNA expression level.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The distribution of true differential expression effects can be represented by a mixture model with null and normally distributed non-null effects.
“In a simplified model where effects are either null or normally distributed with some variance σ2, πDEG equals the number of non-null effects, σ2 is the ratio between the scaled transcriptome-wide impact and πDEG, and σ can be interpreted as the average non-null log2FoldChange (Supplementary Note 3).”
The paper relies on this without support.
DESeq2 scales poorly with the number of covariates.
“DESeq2 scales poorly with the number of covariates.”
The paper relies on this without support.
mash was designed primarily for multivariate experiments with several conditions, where specifying all possible covariance patterns is not feasible.
“while mash was designed primarily for multivariate experiments with several conditions, where specifying all possible covariance patterns is not feasible”
The paper relies on this without support.
Using a null-biased prior is crucial for accurately computing the local false sign rate, but is less important for estimating the effect size distribution itself.
“using a null-biased prior is crucial for accurately computing the local false sign rate, but is less important for estimating the effect size distribution itself.”
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?
TRADE addresses the challenges of noise and undetected effects that are common in single-cell CRISPR screens, such as Perturb-seq, by providing a robust estimation of the true DE effects.
“TRADE addresses the challenges of noise and undetected effects that are common in single-cell CRISPR screens, such as Perturb-seq, by providing a robust estimation of the true DE effects.”
From A systematic comparison of single-cell perturbation response prediction models (2026) · cites this paper as [63]
TRADE quantifies the total effect of a perturbation across the entire transcriptome.
“we used the TRADE (TRADEtools version 0.99.0) (63) method, which quantifies the total effect of a perturbation across the entire transcriptome.”
From A systematic comparison of single-cell perturbation response prediction models (2026) · cites this paper as [63]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
The low-sample-size perturbation changes identity
MinorThe comparison identifies EIF4A3 as the gene with seven cells, but attributes the resulting low-impact estimate to EIF4A4. The text does not establish that these are the same perturbation.
“108 cells received GATA1 knockdown versus just 7 for EIF4A3.”
“EIF4A4 knockdown lacks evidence of broad transcriptome-wide effects (transcriptome-wide impact = 0.004, p = 0.12)”
Cites
Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2
Love, M. I., Huber, W., & Anders, S. (2014) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 · Cited by 95,106 · see citing works
Subramanian, A., Tamayo, P., Mootha, V. K., Mukherjee, S., Ebert, B. L., Gillette, M. A., Paulovich, A., Pomeroy, S. L., Golub, T. R., Lander, E. S., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0506580102 · Cited by 53,625 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Geneset enrichment analysis ranks perturbations and tests for an enrichment nonparametrically 8 .”
Salmon provides fast and bias-aware quantification of transcript expression
Patro, R., Duggal, G., Love, M. I., Irizarry, R. A., & Kingsford, C. (2017) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.4197 · Cited by 12,700 · see citing works
Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification
Bray, N. L., Pimentel, H., Melsted, P., & Pachter, L. (2016) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3519 · Cited by 9,723 · see citing works
The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans
Karczewski, K. J., Francioli, L. C., Tiao, G., Cummings, B. B., Alföldi, J., Wang, Q., Collins, R. L., Laricchia, K. M., Ganna, A., Birnbaum, D. P., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2308-7 · Cited by 9,434 · see citing works
voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts
Law, C. W., Chen, Y., Shi, W., & Smyth, G. K. (2014) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2014-15-2-r29 · Cited by 6,155 · see citing works
Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height
Yang, J., Benyamin, B., McEvoy, B. P., Gordon, S., Henders, A. K., Nyholt, D. R., Madden, P. A., Heath, A. C., Martin, N. G., Montgomery, G. W., et al. (2010) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.608 · Cited by 4,446 · see citing works
An atlas of genetic correlations across human diseases and traits
ReproGen Consortium, Bulik-Sullivan, B., Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Genetic Consortium for Anorexia Nervosa of the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 3, Finucane, H. K., Anttila, V., Gusev, A., Day, F. R., Loh, P.-R., Duncan, L., et al. (2015) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3406 · Cited by 4,255 · see citing works
Self-citationDeep generative modeling for single-cell transcriptomics
Lopez, R., Regier, J., Cole, M. B., Jordan, M. I., & Yosef, N. (2018) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0229-2 · Cited by 2,530 · see citing works
Cui, P., Zhang, S., Ding, F. H., Ali, S., & Xiong, L. (2014) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2014-15-1-r1 · Cited by 2,282 · see citing works
Meyers, R. M., Bryan, J. G., McFarland, J. M., Weir, B. A., Sizemore, A. E., Xu, H., Dharia, N. V., Montgomery, P. G., Cowley, G. S., Pantel, S., et al. (2017) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3984 · Cited by 1,952 · see citing works
Dixit, A., Parnas, O., Li, B., Chen, J., Fulco, C. P., Jerby-Arnon, L., Marjanovic, N. D., Dionne, D., Burks, T., Raychowdhury, R., et al. (2016) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.038 · Cited by 1,863 · see citing works
Self-citationThe mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans
Karczewski, K. J., Francioli, L. C., Tiao, G., Cummings, B. B., Alföldi, J., Wang, Q., Collins, R. L., Laricchia, K. M., Ganna, A., Birnbaum, D. P., et al. (2019) · doi:10.1101/531210 · Cited by 1,662 · see citing works
Genomic Relationships, Novel Loci, and Pleiotropic Mechanisms across Eight Psychiatric Disorders
Lee, P. H., Anttila, V., Won, H., Feng, Y.-C. A., Rosenthal, J., Zhu, Z., Tucker-Drob, E. M., Nivard, M. G., Grotzinger, A. D., Posthuma, D., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.020 · Cited by 1,381 · see citing works
Adamson, B., Norman, T. M., Jost, M., Cho, M. Y., Nuñez, J. K., Chen, Y., Villalta, J. E., Gilbert, L. A., Horlbeck, M. A., Hein, M. Y., et al. (2016) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.048 · Cited by 1,193 · see citing works
Self-citationThe dTAG system for immediate and target-specific protein degradation
Nabet, B., Roberts, J. M., Buckley, D. L., Paulk, J., Dastjerdi, S., Yang, A., Leggett, A. L., Erb, M. A., Lawlor, M. A., Souza, A., et al. (2018) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/s41589-018-0021-8 · Cited by 1,118 · see citing works
Finucane, H. K., Reshef, Y. A., Anttila, V., Slowikowski, K., Gusev, A., Byrnes, A., Gazal, S., Loh, P.-R., Lareau, C., Shoresh, N., et al. (2018) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0081-4 · Cited by 1,097 · see citing works
Self-citationPooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout.
Datlinger, P., Rendeiro, A. F., Schmidl, C., Krausgruber, T., Traxler, P., Klughammer, J., Schuster, L. C., Kuchler, A., Alpar, D., & Bock, C. (2017) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.4177 · Cited by 1,096 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A particularly scalable approach to differential expression is Perturb-seq, which combines single-cell RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) with a high-throughput CRISPR screen 1–4 .”
Shared molecular neuropathology across major psychiatric disorders parallels polygenic overlap
Gandal, M. J., Haney, J. R., Parikshak, N. N., Leppa, V., Ramaswami, G., Hartl, C., Schork, A. J., Appadurai, V., Buil, A., Werge, T. M., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad6469 · Cited by 1,095 · see citing works
Self-citationFalse discovery rates: a new deal
Stephens, M. (2016) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxw041 · Cited by 1,053 · see citing works
Confronting false discoveries in single-cell differential expression
Squair, J. W., Gautier, M., Kathe, C., Anderson, M. A., James, N. D., Hutson, T. H., Hudelle, R., Qaiser, T., Matson, K. J. E., Barraud, Q., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.03.12.435024 · Cited by 1,017 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In single-cell differential expression analyses, a failure to account for biological variability across supracellular sampling units (that is animal, donor, and so on) can lead to overestimation of effects; this phenomenon is referred to as ‘pseudoreplication bias’ 36,37 .”
rnaSPAdes: a de novo transcriptome assembler and its application to RNA-Seq data
Bushmanova, E., Antipov, D., Lapidus, A. L., & Prjibelski, A. D. (2019) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giz100 · Cited by 846 · see citing works
Benchmarking algorithms for gene regulatory network inference from single-cell transcriptomic data
Pratapa, A., Jalihal, A. P., Law, J. N., Bharadwaj, A., & Murali, T. M. (2020) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0690-6 · Cited by 792 · see citing works
Dissecting Immune Circuits by Linking CRISPR-Pooled Screens with Single-Cell RNA-Seq
Jaitin, D. A., Weiner, A., Yofe, I., Lara-Astiaso, D., Keren-Shaul, H., David, E., Salame, T. M., Tanay, A., van Oudenaarden, A., & Amit, I. (2016) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.039 · Cited by 777 · see citing works
Bias, robustness and scalability in single-cell differential expression analysis
Soneson, C., & Robinson, M. D. (2018) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.4612 · Cited by 770 · see citing works
Mapping information-rich genotype-phenotype landscapes with genome-scale Perturb-seq
Replogle, J. M., Saunders, R. A., Pogson, A. N., Hussmann, J. A., Lenail, A., Guna, A., Mascibroda, L., Wagner, E. J., Adelman, K., Lithwick-Yanai, G., et al. (2022) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.05.013 · Cited by 751 · cited 21× · see citing works
“Perturb-seq data from Replogle et al. 6 can be accessed at https://gwps.wi.mit.edu/ (raw data available at SRA under BioProject PRJNA831566). dTAG data from Naqvi et al. 26 are available at Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) under accession number GSE205904. dTAG data from Weber et al. 27 are available at GEO under accessi…”
InfluentialSelf-citationSingle-cell eQTL mapping identifies cell type–specific genetic control of autoimmune disease
Yazar, S., Alquicira-Hernandez, J., Wing, K., Senabouth, A., Gordon, M. G., Andersen, S., Lu, Q., Rowson, A., Taylor, T. R. P., Clarke, L., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abf3041 · Cited by 682 · see citing works
COMPARTMENTS: unification and visualization of protein subcellular localization evidence
Binder, J. X., Pletscher-Frankild, S., Tsafou, K., Stolte, C., O’Donoghue, S. I., Schneider, R., & Jensen, L. J. (2014) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/bau012 · Cited by 649 · see citing works
Lee, S. H., Yang, J., Goddard, M. E., Visscher, P. M., & Wray, N. R. (2012) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts474 · Cited by 635 · see citing works
Weiss, M. J., Keller, G., & Orkin, S. H. (1994) · Genes & Development · doi:10.1101/gad.8.10.1184 · Cited by 541 · see citing works
Plaisier, S. B., Taschereau, R., Wong, J. A., & Graeber, T. G. (2010) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkq636 · Cited by 468 · see citing works
Combinatorial single-cell CRISPR screens by direct guide RNA capture and targeted sequencing
Replogle, J. M., Norman, T. M., Xu, A., Hussmann, J. A., Chen, J., Cogan, J. Z., Meer, E. J., Terry, J. M., Riordan, D. P., Srinivas, N., et al. (2020) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0470-y · Cited by 465 · see citing works
Self-citationUrbut, S., Wang, G. T., Carbonetto, P. S., & Stephens, M. (2018) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0268-8 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
A cross-disorder dosage sensitivity map of the human genome
Collins, R. L., Glessner, J., Porcu, E., Lepamets, M., Brandon, R. C., Lauricella, C., Han, L., Morley, T. J., Niestroj, L., Ulirsch, J. C., et al. (2022) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.06.036 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Optical Pooled Screens in Human Cells
Feldman, D., Singh, A., Schmid-Burgk, J. L., Carlson, R. J., Mezger, A., Garrity, A. J., Zhang, F., & Blainey, P. C. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.09.016 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Rubin, A. J., Parker, K. R., Satpathy, A. T., Qi, Y., Wu, B., Ong, A. J., Mumbach, M. R., Ji, A. L., Kim, D. S., Cho, S. W., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.022 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Extreme Polygenicity of Complex Traits Is Explained by Negative Selection
O'Connor, L. J., Schoech, A. P., Hormozdiari, F., Gazal, S., Patterson, N., & Price, A. L. (2019) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.07.003 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
Self-citationImpact of the Human Cell Atlas on medicine
Rood, J. E., Maartens, A., Hupalowska, A., Teichmann, S. A., & Regev, A. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-02104-7 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
scPerturb: harmonized single-cell perturbation data
Peidli, S., Green, T. D., Shen, C., Gross, T., Min, J., Garda, S., Yuan, B., Schumacher, L. J., Taylor-King, J. P., Marks, D. S., et al. (2024) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-023-02144-y · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Titrating gene expression using libraries of systematically attenuated CRISPR guide RNAs
Jost, M., Santos, D. A., Saunders, R. A., Horlbeck, M. A., Hawkins, J. S., Scaria, S. M., Norman, T. M., Hussmann, J. A., Liem, C. R., Gross, C. A., et al. (2020) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0387-5 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Self-citationMaximizing CRISPRi efficacy and accessibility with dual-sgRNA libraries and optimal effectors
Replogle, J. M., Bonnar, J. L., Pogson, A. N., Liem, C. R., Maier, N. K., Ding, Y., Russell, B. J., Wang, X., Leng, K., Guna, A., et al. (2022) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.81856 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Self-citationBinan, L., Jiang, A., Danquah, S. A., Valakh, V., Simonton, B., Bezney, J., Manguso, R. T., Yates, K. B., Nehme, R., Cleary, B., et al. (2025) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.02.012 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Binan, L., Danquah, S., Valakh, V., Simonton, B., Bezney, J., Nehme, R., Cleary, B., & Farhi, S. L. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.11.30.569494 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Rood, J. E., Hupalowska, A., & Regev, A. (2024) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.07.035 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Precise modulation of transcription factor levels identifies features underlying dosage sensitivity
Naqvi, S., Kim, S., Hoskens, H., Matthews, H. S., Spritz, R. A., Klein, O. D., Hallgrímsson, B., Swigut, T., Claes, P., Pritchard, J. K., et al. (2023) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-023-01366-2 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Predictability of human differential gene expression
Crow, M., Lim, N., Ballouz, S., Pavlidis, P., & Gillis, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1802973116 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Scalable genetic screening for regulatory circuits using compressed Perturb-seq
Yao, D., Binan, L., Bezney, J., Simonton, B., Freedman, J., Frangieh, C. J., Dey, K., Geiger-Schuller, K., Eraslan, B., Gusev, A., et al. (2024) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01964-9 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Reshef, Y., Rumker, L., Kang, J. B., Nathan, A., Korsunsky, I., Asgari, S., Murray, M. B., Moody, D. B., & Raychaudhuri, S. (2021) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-021-01066-4 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
mSWI/SNF promotes Polycomb repression both directly and through genome-wide redistribution
Weber, C. M., Hafner, A., Kirkland, J. G., Braun, S. M. G., Stanton, B. Z., Boettiger, A. N., & Crabtree, G. R. (2021) · Nature Structural & Molecular Biology · doi:10.1038/s41594-021-00604-7 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Evaluating stably expressed genes in single cells
Lin, Y., Ghazanfar, S., Strbenac, D., Wang, A., Patrick, E., Lin, D. M., Speed, T., Yang, J. Y. H., & Yang, P. (2019) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giz106 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Ma, Y., Sun, S., Shang, X., Keller, E. T., Chen, M., & Zhou, X. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15298-6 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
The distribution of common-variant effect sizes
O’Connor, L. J. (2021) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00901-3 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Self-citationMapping information-rich genotype-phenotype landscapes with genome-scale Perturb-seqPreprint
Replogle, J. M., Saunders, R. A., Pogson, A. N., et al. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.12.16.473013 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Self-citationTorres, S. E., Gallagher, C. M., Plate, L., Gupta, M., Liem, C. R., Guo, X., Tian, R., Stroud, R. M., Kampmann, M., Weissman, J. S., et al. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.46595 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Self-citationMultiplexed, image-based pooled screens in primary cells and tissues with PerturbView
Kudo, T., Meireles, A. M., Moncada, R., Chen, Y., Wu, P., Gould, J., Hu, X., Kornfeld, O., Jesudason, R., Foo, C., et al. (2025) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-024-02391-0 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
HMG-CoA reductase promotes protein prenylation and therefore is indispensible for T-cell survival
Lacher, S. M., Bruttger, J., Kalt, B., Berthelet, J., Rajalingam, K., Wörtge, S., & Waisman, A. (2017) · Cell Death & Disease · doi:10.1038/cddis.2017.221 · Cited by 58 · cited 1× · see citing works
“21) and HMGCR for T cells such as Jurkat 22 , but most had no previously documented explanation for their cell-type-dependent effects.”
Mostly natural sequencing-by-synthesis for scRNA-seq using Ultima sequencing
Simmons, S., Lithwick‐Yanai, G., Adiconis, X., Oberstrass, F. C., Iremadze, N., Geiger-Schuller, K., Thakore, P. I., Frangieh, C. J., Barad, O., Almogy, G., et al. (2022) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-022-01452-6 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
A cross-disorder dosage sensitivity map of the human genomePreprint
Collins, R. L., Glessner, J., Porcu, E., et al. (2021) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2021.01.26.21250098 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Xu, Z., Sziraki, A., Lee, J., Zhou, W., & Cao, J. (2024) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01948-9 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Mapping the dynamic genetic regulatory architecture of HLA genes at single-cell resolution
Kang, J. B., Shen, A. Z., Gurajala, S., Nathan, A., Rumker, L., Aguiar, V. R. C., Valencia, C., Lagattuta, K. A., Zhang, F., Jonsson, A. H., et al. (2023) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-023-01586-6 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Rubin, A. J., Parker, K. R., Satpathy, A. T., et al. (2018) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/414870 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Morris, J. A., Sun, J. S., & Sanjana, N. E. (2023) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2023.10.012 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Identifying genetic variants that influence the abundance of cell states in single-cell data
Rumker, L., Sakaue, S., Reshef, Y., Kang, J. B., Yazar, S., Alquicira-Hernández, J., Valencia, C., Lagattuta, K. A., Mah-Som, A. Y., Nathan, A., et al. (2024) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-024-01909-1 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Optimal distance metrics for single-cell RNA-seq populationsPreprint
Ji, Y., Green, T. D., Peidli, S., Bahrami, M., Liu, M., Zappia, L., Hrovatin, K., Sander, C., & Theis, F. J. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.12.26.572833 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Nonlinear transcriptional responses to gradual modulation of transcription factor dosage
Domingo, J., Minaeva, M., Morris, J. A., Ghatan, S., Ziosi, M., Sanjana, N. E., & Lappalainen, T. (2024) · doi:10.1101/2024.03.01.582837 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
CRISPRmap: Sequencing-free optical pooled screens mapping multi-omic phenotypes in cells and tissue
Gu, J., Iyer, A., Wesley, B., Taglialatela, A., Leuzzi, G., Hangai, S., Decker, A., Gu, R., Klickstein, N., Shuai, Y., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.12.26.572587 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Identifying genetic variants that influence the abundance of cell states in single-cell dataPreprint
Rumker, L., Sakaue, S., Reshef, Y., et al. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.11.13.566919 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
ajaynadig, bdharris17, & Zou, C. (2025) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14993815 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Lee, S. H. et al. Estimation of pleiotropy between complex diseases using single-nucleotide polymorphism-derived genomic relationships and restricted maximum likelihood. Bioinformatics 28, 2540–2542 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Virtual Cell Challenge: Toward a Turing test for the virtual cell
Roohani, Y., Hua, T. J., Tung, P., Bounds, L. R., Yu, F. B., Dobin, A., Teyssier, N., Adduri, A., Woodrow, A., Plosky, B. S., et al. (2025) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.06.008 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Predicting cellular responses to perturbation across diverse contexts with State
Adduri, A. K., Gautam, D., Bevilacqua, B., Naghipourfar, M., Imran, A., Shah, R., Teyssier, N., Verma, R., Carpenter, C., Eraslan, B., et al. (2026) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2026.07.052 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
PertEval-scFM: Benchmarking Single-Cell Foundation Models for Perturbation Effect Prediction
Wenteler, A., Occhetta, M., Branson, N., Curean, V., Huebner, M., Dee, W., Connell, W., Chung, S. P., Hawkins-Hooker, A., Ektefaie, Y., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1101/2024.10.02.616248 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
A Systematic Comparison of Single-Cell Perturbation Response Prediction Models
Li, L., You, Y., Fu, Y., Liao, W., Fan, X., Lu, S., Cao, Y., Li, B., Ren, W., Kong, J., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.12.23.630036 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Zhu, R., Dann, E., Yan, J., Retana, J. R., Goto, R., Guitche, R. C., Brixi, L., Ota, M., Hartman, A., Roth, T. L., et al. (2026) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2026.08.002 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Causal modelling of gene effects from regulators to programs to traits
Ota, M., Spence, J. P., Zeng, T., Dann, E., Milind, N., Marson, A., & Pritchard, J. K. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09866-3 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Ota, M., Spence, J. P., Zeng, T., Dann, E., Marson, A., & Pritchard, J. K. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.01.22.634424 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Transcriptional Regulation as a Dose‐dependent Process: Insights From Transcription Factor Tuning
Noviello, G. (2025) · Open Biology · doi:10.1098/rsob.240328 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
A comparison of computational methods for expression forecasting
Kernfeld, E. M., Yang, Y., Weinstock, J. S., Battle, A. J., & Cahan, P. (2025) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-025-03840-y · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Sex effects on gene expression across the human cerebral cortex at cell type resolution
DeCasien, A. R., Auluck, P. K., Liu, S., Feng, N., Elkahloun, A. G., Xu, Q., Marenco, S., Cookson, M., & Raznahan, A. (2026) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aea9063 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Wang, C., Karimzadeh, M., Ravindra, N. G., Bounds, L. R., Alerasool, N., Huang, A., Ma, S., Gulbranson, D. R., Cui, H., Lee, Y., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.03.18.712807 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Cas13d-mediated isoform-specific RNA knockdown with a unified computational and experimental toolbox
Schertzer, M. D., Stirn, A., Isaev, K., Pereira, L., Park, S. H., Das, A., Réal, A., Jeffery, E. D., Harbison, C., Wessels, H., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-62066-5 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Virtual Cells Need Context, Not Just ScalePreprint
Dibaeinia, P., Babu, S., Knudson, M. K., ElSheikh, A., Wen, Y., Liu, H., Perera, J. F., & Khan, A. A. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.02.04.703804 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Foundation Models Improve Perturbation Response PredictionPreprint
Cole, E., Huizing, G.-J., Addagudi, S., Ho, N., Hasanaj, E., Kuijs, M., Johnstone, T., Carilli, M., Davi, A., Ellington, C. N., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.02.18.706454 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Littman, R., Levine, J., Maleki, S., Lee, Y., Ermakov, V. Y., Qiu, L., Wu, A. P., Huang, K., Lopez, R., Scalia, G., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.06.03.657653 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Miller, H. E., Mejia, G., Leblanc, F., Wang, B., Swain, B., & Camillo, L. P. D. L. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.10.20.683304 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Hasanaj, E., Cole, E., Mohammadi, S., Addagudi, S., Zhang, X., Song, L., & Xing, E. P. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.06.26.661186 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Sex effects on gene expression across the human cerebral cortex at single cell resolutionPreprint
DeCasien, A. R., Auluck, P. K., Liu, S., Marenco, S., Cookson, M., & Raznahan, A. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.06.30.661781 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Mandell, K. A. P., Simmons, S., Nadig, A., Farsi, Z., Huang, W.-C., Aryal, S., Kwon, M. J., Song, B. J., Brenner, K. S., Shepard, N., et al. (2025) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-025-03563-5 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationBuffering of gene dosage response curves for human complex traits
Milind, N., Smith, C. J., Zhu, H., Gjorgjieva, T., Spence, J. P., & Pritchard, J. K. (2026) · Cell Genomics · doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2026.101221 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
King, H. E., O’Connell, S., Kavanagh, D., Mason, S., McCool, C. S., Fernández-Chamorro, J., Chaffer, C. L., Clark, S. J., Vieira, H. G. S., Sterne-Weiler, T., et al. (2026) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkag118 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
scBaseCount: An AI agent-curated, standardized, auto-updated single-cell data repository
Youngblut, N. D., Carpenter, C., Nayebnazar, A., Adduri, A., Shah, R., Ricci-Tam, C., Prashar, J., Ilango, R., Teyssier, N., Konermann, S., et al. (2026) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2026.08.025 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Regulatory network topology and the genetic architecture of gene expression
Aguirre, M., Spence, J. P., Sella, G., & Pritchard, J. K. (2026) · Cell Genomics · doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2026.101219 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Liang, H., Berger, B., & Singh, R. (2026) · Cell Systems · doi:10.1016/j.cels.2026.101675 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
PerTurboAgent: A Self-Planning Agent for Boosting Sequential Perturb-seq ExperimentsPreprint
Hao, M., Lee, Y., Wang, H., Scalia, G., & Regev, A. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.05.25.656020 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Aberrant mRNA splicing and impaired hippocampal neurogenesis in Grin2b mutant mice
Farsi, Z., Nicolella, A. A., Simmons, S., Shin, W., Kang, M., Lee, G., Kwon, M. J., Brenner, K. S., Picard, I., Shepard, N., et al. (2026) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.114700 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Impaired removal of dying brain cells by microglia in Gpr34 deficient mice
Bohannon, D. G., Geller, A., Simmons, S., Cintron, J. A., Martenis, W. E., Stalnaker, K. J., Masse, A., Kwon, M. J., Zhang, Y.-L., Levin, J. Z., et al. (2026) · Journal of Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1186/s12974-026-03777-4 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Kwon, M. J., Mandell, K. A. P., Aryal, S., Geng, C., Nicolella, A. A., Valle-Tojeiro, A., Natarajan, S., Misri, D., Hall, A., Song, B. J., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.10.12.618006 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Consequences of training data composition for deep learning models in single-cell biologyPreprint
Nadig, A., Thoutam, A., Hughes, M., Gupta, A., Navia, A. W., Fusi, N., Raghavan, S., Winter, P. S., Amini, A. P., & Crawford, L. A. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.02.19.639127 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationCo-fluctuations of genes in single cells predict transcriptome-wide outcomes to perturbationsPreprint
Kuznets-Speck, B., Kumari, N., Senthilkumar, I., Jung, J., Rios, H. M. L., Schwartz, L., Sun, H., Anisetti, V. R., Wang, C., Wang, Q., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.06.27.661814 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Cerebrovascular vulnerability and fibrosis in human brain aneurysms
Wang, J. C., Kim, C. N., Bhalla, S., Scherschinski, L., Gopinadhan, A., Arul, S., Sanchez, D., Schriber, T. D., Apolonio, A., Gülsuyu, B., et al. (2026) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-026-02326-9 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Deep learning perturbation models can outperform baselines on calibrated metrics
Miller, H. E., Mejia, G. M., Leblanc, F. J. A., Swain, B., Wang, B., & de Lima Camillo, L. P. (2026) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-026-03307-w · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Functional consequences of genetic risk for neuropsychiatric conditions at chr22qPreprint
Nadig, A., Tegtmeyer, M., Patil, A., Zhang, Y., Ling, E., Weiner, D. J., Liyanage, D., Erdin, S., Yadav, R., Bybjerg‐Grauholm, J., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.07.01.25330642 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationGeller, A., Kwon, M. J., Simmons, S., Xu, Q., Martenis, W. E., Doman, J. L., Natarajan, S., Stalnaker, K. J., Zhang, J., Adiconis, X., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.11.26.690816 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Reconstructing developmental and disease progression with sample-level embeddingsPreprint
Jiang, L., Tan, Z. C., Grabski, I. N., Hao, Y., Nakatsuka, N. J., Sarkar, S., Shenoy, A., & Satija, R. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.10.693462 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Mesoscale molecular architecture of the human striatum across cell types and lifespanPreprint
Kraft, A. W., Lee, M. D., Rayan, N., Gao, H., Milidantri, J., Vanderburg, C. R., Balderrama, K. S., Nadaf, N. M., Kumar, V., Flowers, K., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.03.04.709715 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationConcordant transcriptional and morphological remodeling revealed by in vivo Perturb-CLEARPreprint
Wu, B., Simmons, S., Kim, S., Li, J., Akram, M. A., Park, C. S., Zheng, X., Mendez, I., Patel, S., Chau, A., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.04.06.716787 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Tabular Foundation Models Are Competitive Cellular Perturbation Predictors Across Biological ScalesPreprint
Palla, G., Hillsley, A. V., Kim, Y. J., & Royer, L. A. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.28.735106 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
A systematic comparison of single-cell perturbation response prediction models
Li, L., You, Y., Fu, Y., Liao, W., Fan, X., Lu, S., Cao, Y., Li, B., Ren, W., Kong, J., et al. (2026) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aed3414 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Tiwari, K., Mahajan, G., Bellad, R., Dhruw, N. K., & Jha, A. (2026) · doi:10.64898/2026.10.16.759604
Quantifying reproducible multivariate differential expression in genetic perturbation screens
Peidli, S. (2025) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-025-02177-3
Gradient-aware modeling advances AI-driven prediction of genetic perturbation effectsPreprint
Zhu, D., & Jerby‐Arnon, L. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.10.03.680360
Mo, J. S., & Han, Y. (2025) · Genes · doi:10.3390/genes16111322
DINOcell: learning generalizable perturbation effects through self-distillationPreprint
Li, J., Tasdemir, N., Kyriazopoulou-Panagiotopoulou, S., Xu, S., Merrell, A. J., Susanto, J., Cass, A. A., DeTomaso, D., Steach, H., Chow, J. C., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.16.694747
Asan, A. S., Kozhemiako, N., Goble, N., Yau, T., Zhu, T., Simmons, S., Haywood, N., Wang, Y., Kim, S., Guo, Z., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.02.04.703851 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Boone, P. M., Erdin, S., Mohamed, A., Haghshenas, S., Faour, K. N. W., Kao, E. M., Fu, J. M., Auwerx, C., Harripaul, R., Jana, B., et al. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.02.23.26346364
Fu, X., Yang, C., Cui, C., Geng, A., Sun, Y., Zha, C., Cui, F., Wei, L., Zou, Q., Gao, X.-J., et al. (2026) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.281523.125
GenePT Revisited: Do Better Text Embeddings Make Better Gene Embeddings?Preprint
Hedley, J. G., Torr, P. H. S., & Märtens, K. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.04.16.718976
Are Current AI Virtual Cell Models Useful for Scientific Discovery?Preprint
Bereket, M. D., & Leskovec, J. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.04.23.719015
Dhaka, B., Gao, J., & Ideker, T. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.04.23.720505 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
DoFormer: Causal Transformer for Gene PerturbationPreprint
Karbalayghareh, A., Paull, E., & Califano, A. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.02.722054
Zhu, J., Han, Z., Gregorio, R. D., Kevin, C., Zhang, Z., Dong, X., Banerjee, K., Liu, K., Rea-Moreno, M., Kizilbash, M., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.07.723626
蒋丹凝, An, Z., 蒋丹凝, & Lai, L. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.08.731000
Charting the computational landscape of single-cell genetic perturbation
Zhang, Y., Huang, J., Li, Y., Liu, T., Ren, L., Huang, J. H., Lin, H., Feng, J., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · Journal of Advanced Research · doi:10.1016/j.jare.2026.06.012
Learning Perturbation Effects Through Contrastive Alignment of Multimodal Biological EmbeddingsPreprint
Long, W., Liu, T., Szałata, A., Theis, F. J., Xue, L., & Zhao, H. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.23.734145
Task-adapted biological foundation models uncover perturbation-centric representationsPreprint
Pareja-Lorente, E., & Aloy, P. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.30.735584
Direct comparison of CRISPR knockout and interference with Perturb-seqPreprint
Drepanos, L. M., Velasco, B. E., Chase, A., Srikanth, S., Gatzen, M., Rickner, H., Dubinsky, D., Navia, A. W., Shibue, T., Yates, K. B., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.04.736492
Boone, P. M., Erdin, S., Mohamed, A., Haghshenas, S., Faour, K. N. W., Kao, E. M., Fu, J. M., Auwerx, C., Harripaul, R., Jana, B., et al. (2026) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2026.06.012
COMPASS: Component-Wise Inference of Shared and Gene-Specific Perturbation ResponsePreprint
Liang, H., & Singh, R. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.08.03.742643 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
McMahon, M. E., Lianoglou, S., Narayan, S., Zhang, J., Chen, S., Li, J., Kluwe, W., Liu, Y., Cao, B., Luo, J., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.05.743063
SLIM: A small linear model with STRING embeddings for single-cell genetic perturbation predictionPreprint
Hu, D., Avelli, M. P., Jensen, L. J., & Rasmussen, S. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.07.743481
Geller, A., Kwon, M. J., Simmons, S., Xu, Q., Martenis, W. E., Doman, J. L., Natarajan, S., Stalnaker, K. J., Zhang, J., Adiconis, X., et al. (2026) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.112104.1
Geller, A., Kwon, M. J., Simmons, S., Xu, Q., Martenis, W. E., Doman, J. L., Natarajan, S., Stalnaker, K. J., Zhang, J., Adiconis, X., et al. (2026) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.112104
Multimodal brain cell atlas across the adult macaque lifespan.
Zhang, X., Lai, G.-S., Guo, X.-Y., Ma, W., Yuan, Y., Zhang, H., Zhang, B., Fan, P., Liu, X.-Y., Guo, P.-C., et al. (2026) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2026.07.045
Lin, R., Ke, Z., Wang, J., Wei, T., Zhang, L., Fang, Y., & Tian, R. (2026) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2026.08.006
Zhao, X., Chang, H., Zhao, Z., & Xiang, X. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10564610/v1
A transcription factor regulatory atlas for activity inference and perturbation prediction
Sugimoto, H., Tsuyuzaki, K., Zou, Z., Oki, S., Ohta, T., & Kawakami, E. (2026) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkag897
Noori, A., Fishman, N., Fang, A., Fesser, L., & Žitnik, M. (2026) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2026.08.032 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Liu, Q., Zhang, Q., Chen, Y., Du, J., Zhao, S., & Wang, J. (2026) · Hong Kong University · doi:10.25442/hku.34002315
Yuan, S., Yang, S., Huang, Y., Ma, B., Wu, Q., Zhang, X., Yin, T., Chen, L., Zhang, B., Sun, G., et al. (2026) · Cell stem cell · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2026.09.005
- Authors
- Nadig, A., Replogle, J. M., Pogson, A. N., Murthy, M., McCarroll, S. A., Weissman, J. S., Robinson, E. B., & O’Connor, L. J.
- Affiliations
- Broad Institute (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (US)
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nadig, Ajay
- Replogle, Joseph M.
- O’Connor, Luke J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Genetics
- Published
- 2025-04-21
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1228-1237
- ISSN
- 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
- 1546-1718
- PMC
- PMC13063516
- OpenAlex
- W4409622123
- Semantic Scholar
- 03c661b9bc85419c1f48bfc3ec8b03f753c1a609
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 46 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 20.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007753, T32GM007618)
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F31NS115380)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
- Keywords
- Perturb-seq, single-cell CRISPR screens, differential expression detection, estimation error, essential genes, dosage effect, neuropsychiatric disorders
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-05.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-05.
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