PreprintCited by 625Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Missing Data and Technical Variability in Single-Cell RNA-Sequencing Experiments

Open access
Hicks, Stephanie C., Townes, F. William, Teng, Mingxiang, Irizarry, Rafael A.·2015·Biostatistics

Preprint — published as 10.1093/biostatistics/kxx053 · Paper page

Abstract

Until recently, high-throughput gene expression technology, such as RNA-Sequencing (RNA-seq) required hundreds of thousands of cells to produce reliable measurements. Recent technical advances permit genome-wide gene expression measurement at the single-cell level. Single-cell RNA-Seq (scRNA-seq) is the most widely used and numerous publications are based on data produced with this technology. However, RNA-Seq and scRNA-seq data are markedly different. In particular, unlike RNA-Seq, the majority of reported expression levels in scRNA-seq are zeros, which could be either biologically-driven, genes not expressing RNA at the time of measurement, or technically-driven, gene expressing RNA, but not at a sufficient level to detected by sequencing technology. Another difference is that the proportion of genes reporting the expression level to be zero varies substantially across single cells compared to RNA-seq samples. However, it remains unclear to what extent this cell-to-cell variation is being driven by technical rather than biological variation. Furthermore, while systematic errors, including batch effects, have been widely reported as a major challenge in high-throughput technologies, these issues have received minimal attention in published studies based on scRNA-seq technology. Here, we use an assessment experiment to examine data from published studies and demonstrate that systematic errors can explain a substantial percentage of observed cell-to-cell expression variability. Specifically, we present evidence that some of these reported zeros are driven by technical variation by demonstrating that scRNA-seq produces more zeros than expected and that this bias is greater for lower expressed genes. In addition, this missing data problem is exacerbated by the fact that this technical variation varies cell-to-cell. Then, we show how this technical cell-to-cell variability can be confused with novel biological results. Finally, we demonstrate and discuss how batch-effects and confounded experiments can intensify the problem.

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 · 10.1101/025528

Cites

0 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?

  • One of the biggest limitations of the C1 system is that single cell capture and preparation from different conditions are fully independent.

    “One of the biggest limitations of using the C1 system, however, is that single cell capture and preparation from different conditions are fully independent23.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hicks, S. C., Townes, F. W., Teng, M., & Irizarry, R. A.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Hicks, Stephanie C.
Venue
Biostatistics
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2015-08-25
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
562-578
ISSN
1465-4644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2794891507
Cited by
625
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 2
FWCI
21.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biostatistics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH-R01)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (K99HG009007, HG005220, R01HG005220)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM083084, R01GM103552)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T32LM012411)
  • National Center for Research Resources (R01RR021967)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
single-cell RNA sequencing, missing data, technical variability, systematic errors, batch effects, confounding, low-expressed genes
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Expression Profiling, Single-Cell Analysis, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Transcriptome

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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