Cited by 816Gene Regulatory Network AnalysisSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction

Benchmarking algorithms for gene regulatory network inference from single-cell transcriptomic data

Open access
Pratapa, Aditya, Jalihal, Amogh P., Law, Jeffrey N., Bharadwaj, Aditya, Murali, T. M.·2020·Nature Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

We present a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art algorithms for inferring gene regulatory networks from single-cell transcriptional data. As the ground truth for assessing accuracy, we use synthetic networks with predictable trajectories, literature-curated Boolean models and diverse transcriptional regulatory networks. We develop a strategy to simulate single-cell transcriptional data from synthetic and Boolean networks that avoids pitfalls of previously used methods. Furthermore, we collect networks from multiple experimental single-cell RNA-seq datasets. We develop an evaluation framework called BEELINE. We find that the area under the precision-recall curve and early precision of the algorithms are moderate. The methods are better in recovering interactions in synthetic networks than Boolean models. The algorithms with the best early precision values for Boolean models also perform well on experimental datasets. Techniques that do not require pseudotime-ordered cells are generally more accurate. Based on these results, we present recommendations to end users. BEELINE will aid the development of gene regulatory network inference algorithms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41592-019-0690-6

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GRN inference accuracy has remained disappointingly low, marginally exceeding random predictions.

    “Despite extensive efforts, GRN inference accuracy has remained disappointingly low, marginally exceeding random predictions39.”
  • Targeted perturbations can be modeled as affecting individual nodes of a regulatory network, which allows investigation of mechanisms and inference of regulatory interactions and their direction.

    “Experiments with targeted perturbations can be modeled as affecting individual nodes of a regulatory network model, enabling investigation of mechanistic processes and inference of regulatory interactions and their directionality11.”

    From scPerturb: harmonized single-cell perturbation data (2024) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Cell-type-specific ground-truth GRNs were generated in the same manner as in a previous benchmarking study.

    “Cell-type-specific ground-truth GRNs were generated in the same manner as in a previous benchmarking study55.”
  • GENIE3 emerged as one of the best-performing algorithms in a previous benchmarking study.

    “GENIE3 emerged as one of the best-performing algorithms in a previous benchmarking study55.”
  • GRN inference performance was evaluated by AUROC and EPR, following the evaluation method used in a previous benchmarking study.

    “GRN inference performance was evaluated by the AUROC and the early precision ratio (EPR), following the evaluation method used in a previous benchmarking study55.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [35]Huynh-Thu VA, Irrthum A, Wehenkel L & Geurts P Inferring regulatory networks from expression data using tree-based methods. PLoS One 5, (2010). PMC2946910 20927193

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pratapa, A., Jalihal, A. P., Law, J. N., Bharadwaj, A., & Murali, T. M.
Affiliations
Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Murali, T. M.
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2020-01-06
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
147-154
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2997831639
Cited by
792
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 135 · 2025: 146 · 2024: 135 · 2023: 142 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 3
FWCI
31.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (CCF-1617678, DBI-1759858)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Cancer Institute (UH2CA203768)
  • ODNI | Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (W911NF-17-2-0105)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
Keywords
gene regulatory network inference, single-cell transcriptomics, single-cell RNA sequencing, algorithm benchmarking, synthetic gene regulatory networks, Boolean model, data simulation, pseudotime, precision and recall
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Regulatory Networks, Single-Cell Analysis, Transcriptome, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review