Confronting false discoveries in single-cell differential expression
Open accessAbstract
Differential expression analysis in single-cell transcriptomics enables the dissection of cell-type-specific responses to perturbations such as disease, trauma, or experimental manipulation. While many statistical methods are available to identify differentially expressed genes, the principles that distinguish these methods and their performance remain unclear. Here, we show that the relative performance of these methods is contingent on their ability to account for variation between biological replicates. Methods that ignore this inevitable variation are biased and prone to false discoveries. Indeed, the most widely used methods can discover hundreds of differentially expressed genes in the absence of biological differences. Our results suggest an urgent need for a paradigm shift in the methods used to perform differential expression analysis in single-cell data.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper benchmarks 14 differential expression methods on 18 ground-truth datasets and finds that pseudobulk methods, which aggregate cells within biological replicates, outperform single-cell methods. Methods that ignore between-replicate variation are biased toward highly expressed genes and can produce hundreds of false discoveries even without biological differences.
Key findings
- In 18 ground-truth datasets, all six top-performing DE methods aggregated cells within biological replicates to form pseudobulks; pseudobulk versus single-cell differences were highly significant and robust to concordance methodology.
- Single-cell DE methods were biased toward highly expressed genes: false positives were more highly expressed, abundant ERCC spike-ins were incorrectly called DE, and a compendium of 46 scRNA-seq datasets showed a systematic preference for highly expressed genes.
- Failing to account for biological replicates produced false discoveries: simulations identified hundreds of DE genes with no perturbation; random splits of unstimulated controls in 14 datasets produced excess false positives; spatial transcriptomics identified thousands of DE genes within each spinal cord region.
- In injured mouse spinal cord snRNA-seq (19,237 nuclei), RNAscope validated 5 of 6 genes called by edgeR-LRT versus 3 of 13 called by Wilcoxon rank-sum (p < 0.05, χ² test); GLMMs converged to pseudobulk performance in datasets of 500 or more cells and took an average of 13.5 h per cell type versus minutes for pseudobulk methods.
Methods
- Literature review of 500 recent scRNA-seq studies, of which 205 conducted DE analysis between biological conditions, identified 14 methods: 7 single-cell methods, 6 pseudobulk methods, and 1 linear mixed model.
- The study used 18 ground-truth datasets from four publications with matched bulk and scRNA-seq in the same purified cells, perturbations, and laboratories; concordance was measured by area under the concordance curve (AUCC) and rank correlation, with GO term enrichment, a 46-dataset scRNA-seq compendium, Splatter simulations, 14 control-group datasets, spatial transcriptomics, and spinal cord injury snRNA-seq plus RNAscope.
- Additional analyses disabled pseudobulk aggregation, created pseudo-replicates by shuffling replicates, compared variance between biological replicates and pseudo-replicates, and evaluated Poisson or negative binomial GLMMs.
Limitations
- The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section. It states that the enormous computational requirements of GLMMs prevented evaluation in the full ground-truth datasets, so downsampled datasets of 25–1,000 cells were used; the ground-truth resource was limited to 18 datasets from four publications.
- Evident from the text: simulations used parameters estimated from the Kang et al. dataset and may not capture all biological or technical heterogeneity; the in vivo RNAscope validation screened selected putatively DE genes rather than all DE genes; and human-versus-mouse variability conclusions rely on the assembled compendium datasets.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
54 of 64 cited sources checked · 24 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
Within the compendium, fourteen studies had control groups that included six or more samples.
“Within our compendium, we identified a total of fourteen studies with control groups that included six or more samples5,6,15,49–59.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim10 of 10 sources checked- cites [5] source
- cites [6] 2019, Single-cell transcriptomic analysis of Alzheimer’s disease, Nature source
- cites [15] source
- cites [49] 2020, Single-nucleus transcriptomics of the prefrontal cortex in major depressive disorder implicates oligodendrocyte precursor cells and excitatory neurons, Nat. Neu-rosci source
- cites [50] source
- cites [51] source
The Fig. 9 caption reports six Sham/Veh controls for behavioral tests, so this paper does contain a control group of six. But the Methods report only three Sham samples in the Drop-seq data and four per group selected for T4-treatment sequencing. The paper cannot establish the citing authors’ count of fourteen studies or show that this study had six control sequencing samples. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [52] 2018, Single-cell RNA-seq uncovers a robust transcriptional response to morphine by glia, Cell Rep source
The cited paper is one study, so it cannot establish the compendium-wide total of fourteen. For its own control group, STAR⋆METHODS reports four mock-treatment biological replicates in the single-cell analysis, not six or more samples; its bulk RNA-seq analysis reports three mock-treatment replicates. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [53] source
The study description (section labeled Abstract; page not provided) reports uninjured, intact-tail samples alongside amputated-tail samples, supporting its identification as a study with a control condition. It says there were at least two biological replicates per condition, but does not establish that the control group had six or more samples. The count of fourteen studies is the citing authors’ compendium count, not a finding attributed to this individual source. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [54] 2019, Cell type-specific transcriptional programs in mouse prefrontal cortex during adolescence and addiction, Nat. Commun source
- cites [55] 2020, Single cell transcriptome profiling of the human alcohol-dependent brain, Hum. Mol. Genet source
The Results and Discussion section (page unavailable) says this study included four control donors, not six or more. The Conclusions section likewise describes seven donors in total: three with alcohol dependence and four controls. This source therefore cannot support its inclusion as a study meeting the stated control-group threshold; it does not address the compendium-wide count of fourteen. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Rests on an assumption: The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
- Findingcitation§ Results
Pseudobulk methods more accurately predicted changes in protein abundance than single-cell methods.
“Moreover, comparisons to matching proteomics data 13 revealed that pseudobulk methods also more accurately predicted changes in protein abundance (Supplementary Fig. 1e-f ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] 2018, Gene expression variability across cells and species shapes innate immunity, Nature source
- Premisecitation§ Results
Within the same experimental condition, replicates exhibit inherent differences in gene expression, which reflect both biological and technical factors.
“Within the same experimental condition, replicates exhibit inherent differences in gene expression, which reflect both biological and technical factors 22 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [22] source
- Findingown data§ Results
All six of the top-performing DE methods aggregated cells within a biological replicate to form pseudobulks before applying a statistical test.
“This analysis immediately revealed that all six of the top-performing methods shared a common analytical property. These methods aggregated cells within a biological replicate, to form so-called ‘pseudobulks’, before applying a statistical test (Fig. 1c ) 18 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [18] source
- Findingown data§ Results
Single-cell methods failed to identify the relevant GO term when comparing mouse phagocytes stimulated with poly(I:C).
“For example, single-cell methods failed to identify the relevant GO term when comparing mouse phagocytes stimulated with poly(I:C) 12 , a synthetic double-stranded RNA (Fig. 1f ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [12] source
The Methods section on bone marrow-derived phagocytes reports poly(I:C) stimulation of rodent cells and single-cell analysis, but does not report whether a GO term was identified. Searches for GO-term enrichment and a failure to identify a term found no passage addressing the claimed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation§ Results
An extensive survey of the literature identified a total of eighteen 'gold standard' datasets that met the criteria of matched bulk and scRNA-seq performed on the same population of purified cells, exposed to the same perturbations, and sequenced in the same laboratories.
“An extensive survey of the literature identified a total of eighteen ‘gold standard’ datasets that met these criteria (Fig. 1a ) 12 – 15 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim4 of 4 sources checked- cites [12] source
- cites [13] 2018, Gene expression variability across cells and species shapes innate immunity, Nature source
- cites [14] 2020, Single-cell transcriptomics identifies an effectorness gradient shaping the response of CD4+ T cells to cytokines, Nat. Commun source
- cites [15] source
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data§ Results
Cell type prioritization using Augur indicated that endothelial cells underwent the most profound transcriptional changes in the spinal cord below the injury.
“This unbiased analysis indicated that endothelial cells underwent the most profound transcriptional changes in the spinal cord below the injury (Fig. 5e ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [27] source
The paper’s Abstract describes applying Augur to lumbar spinal-cord cells after injury, but its spinal-cord prioritization focuses on interneuron subtypes. The Abstract reports profound changes in endothelial cells in Alzheimer’s disease datasets, not in the spinal cord below an injury. It therefore supports the use of Augur in a spinal-cord injury setting, but not the attributed endothelial-cell finding. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [28] 2020, A curated database reveals trends in single-cell transcriptomics, Database source
- Premisecitation§ Results
Several validated edgeR-LRT genes, including Slc7a11 and Igfbp6, are involved in the response to hypoxia within endothelial cells.
“Several of the validated edgeR-LRT genes, including Slc7a11 and Igfbp6 , are involved in the response to hypoxia within endothelial cells, supporting the establishment of a chronically hypoxic state in the lumbar spinal cord 31 – 33 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked- cites [31] source
The section “HIF regulates antioxidant defenses in hypoxic cells” (page unavailable) says hypoxia induces SLC7A11 expression in breast cancer cells. It does not establish that SLC7A11 or Igfbp6 responds to hypoxia in endothelial cells, and the retrieved passages do not address Igfbp6. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [32] source
- cites [33] source
The Results section, “Endogenous trace amines induce hypoxia after SCI” (page unavailable), reports chronic hypoxia in spinal cord tissue caudal to injury. But the paper’s mRNA analysis (Online Methods; page unavailable) does not identify Slc7a11 or Igfbp6 or describe either gene’s role in endothelial-cell responses to hypoxia. Searches for both gene names found no matching passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation§ Discussion
Previous studies on this issue relied almost entirely on synthetic data, supplemented by a few illustrative case studies.
“However, these studies relied almost entirely on synthetic data, supplemented by a few illustrative case studies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [18] source
- cites [34] source
The Results (Simulation; no page available) describe this paper’s simulation study, and the Discussion (no page available) says it also examined a few independent real datasets. That supports the characterization of this paper’s approach, but the copy does not establish that previous studies generally relied almost entirely on synthetic data or used real data only as illustrative case studies. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation§ Discussion
The most widely used analysis packages in the field currently employ DE methods prone to false discoveries by default.
“the most widely used analysis packages in the field currently employ DE methods prone to false discoveries by default 35 , 36 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [35] source
The STAR Methods (Quantification and statistical analysis; page unavailable) describe differential-expression testing with Seurat’s FindMarkers, but specify a test rather than identifying its default. Our copy does not assess whether widely used packages’ default DE methods are prone to false discoveries (searched: false discoveries, false positives, and default DE tests). (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [36] source
The Results section ('SCANPY integrates canonical analysis methods in a scalable way'; page unavailable) says SCANPY identifies marker genes using differential expression tests. The Background also identifies established single-cell analysis frameworks. Neither passage says the most widely used packages employ such tests by default or that their methods are prone to false discoveries. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Changes in mRNA abundance within multicellular tissues are confounded by different responses across cell types and changes in the relative abundance of these cell types.
“Changes in mRNA abundance within multicellular tissues are confounded by different responses across cell types and changes in the relative abundance of these cell types3.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [3] source
- Premisecitation
Differences in the specification of the simulation model have led investigators to contrasting conclusions about differential expression methods.
“Differences in the specification of this model have led investigators to contrasting conclusions9,10.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [9] 2020, muscat detects subpopulation-specific state transitions from multi-sample multi-condition singlecell transcriptomics data, Nat. Commun source
The Introduction and Results (Simulation framework; pages unavailable) describe a flexible model used to compare methods across simulation scenarios. The Discussion (page unavailable) notes that other scenarios could be tested, but the passages found do not say that differences in model specification led investigators to contrasting conclusions. I searched for differing simulation assumptions and conflicting method comparisons. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [10] 2021, A practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies, Nat. Commun source
The Introduction describes this paper’s simulation of differential-expression methods, and the Methods describe its simulation model. Neither passage says that differences between investigators’ simulation-model specifications led them to contrasting conclusions. Searches for conflicting findings across simulation studies found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation
Pseudobulk methods more accurately predicted changes in protein abundance than single-cell methods in comparisons to matching proteomics data.
“Moreover, comparisons to matching proteomics data13 revealed that pseudobulk methods also more accurately predicted changes in protein abundance (Supplementary Fig. 1e-f).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] 2018, Gene expression variability across cells and species shapes innate immunity, Nature source
The Methods section on bone marrow-derived phagocytes says differential expression was analyzed using an in silico bulk made from single-cell data. Neither that passage nor passages retrieved by searching for proteomics and protein abundance report a comparison with matching proteomics data or show that pseudobulk methods predicted protein changes more accurately. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation
An extensive literature survey identified eighteen gold standard datasets that met the criteria of matched bulk and scRNA-seq on the same purified cell population, exposed to the same perturbations, and sequenced in the same laboratories.
“An extensive survey of the literature identified a total of eighteen ‘gold standard’ datasets that met these criteria (Fig. 1a)12–15.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim4 of 4 sources checked- cites [12] source
The Methods section describes a catalog of gene sets, and the Results section describes six GSEA examples; neither reports the claimed literature survey. Searches for eighteen matched bulk and scRNA-seq datasets and their stated selection criteria found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [13] 2018, Gene expression variability across cells and species shapes innate immunity, Nature source
- cites [14] 2020, Single-cell transcriptomics identifies an effectorness gradient shaping the response of CD4+ T cells to cytokines, Nat. Commun source
- cites [15] source
- The authors state this as an assumption: The closest possible approximation to the experimental ground truth can be obtained from matched bulk and scRNA-seq performed on the same population of purified cells, exposed to the same perturbations, and sequenced in the same laboratories.
- Findingown data
Failing to account for the intrinsic variability of biological replicates produced hundreds of DE genes between randomly assigned replicates in control human PBMC samples not exposed to interferon.
“Failing to account for the intrinsic variability of biological replicates produced hundreds of DE genes between randomly assigned replicates (Fig. 4d and Supplementary Fig. 6a, b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [5] source
The paper reports substantial inter-individual expression variability in control PBMCs, including 15–827 genes with statistically significant variability (results passage, labeled Abstract in our copy; page unavailable). But those are genes variable across individuals, not hundreds of differentially expressed genes found between randomly assigned control replicates. The Methods describe using individuals as replicates for differential-expression analysis, but do not report the claimed random-assignment comparison. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
Single-cell methods incorrectly identified many abundant spike-ins as DE in a dataset with equal concentrations of synthetic mRNAs spiked into each single-cell library.
“We found that single-cell methods incorrectly identified many abundant spike-ins as DE (Fig. 2d-e and Supplementary Fig. 2e-f).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [12] source
The Abstract discusses differential expression in microarray profiles, and the Methods describe gene-set enrichment analysis. A search of our copy for single-cell methods, synthetic mRNA spike-ins, and false differential-expression calls found no passage addressing the claimed result. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [21] source
The Differential expression analysis section (page unavailable) uses synthetic spike-ins at a 1:1 mixing ratio as true negatives, and the Null model evaluation section reports false-positive DE calls in technical replicates. The paper does not report that single-cell methods called many abundant, equally concentrated spike-ins DE; its reported false positives come from a different comparison. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Previous studies on conflating variability between replicates with biological effect relied almost entirely on synthetic data, supplemented by a few illustrative case studies.
“However, these studies relied almost entirely on synthetic data, supplemented by a few illustrative case studies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [18] source
- cites [34] source
The Introduction and Results > Statistical principles discuss biological replicates, variability, and methods for analysing gene expression, but do not characterize the evidence used by previous studies. A search for synthetic or simulated data and illustrative case studies found no passage saying those studies relied almost entirely on synthetic data. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data§ Results
The emergence of a bias towards highly expressed genes paralleled this decrease in performance.
“The emergence of a bias towards highly expressed genes paralleled this decrease in performance (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Fig. 4b-c ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
The genes falsely identified as DE corresponded to those with the highest variability between replicates.
“Moreover, we again confirmed that the genes falsely identified as DE corresponded to those with the highest variability between replicates (Supplementary Fig. 6d ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
The resulting DE genes were enriched for hundreds of Gene Ontology (GO) terms despite a complete absence of biological perturbation.
“The resulting DE genes were enriched for hundreds of Gene Ontology (GO) terms, despite a complete absence of biological perturbation (Supplementary Fig. 6c ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
In a spike-in dataset, single-cell methods incorrectly identified many abundant spike-ins as DE.
“We found that single-cell methods incorrectly identified many abundant spike-ins as DE (Fig. 2d-e and Supplementary Fig. 2e-f ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Pseudobulk methods dramatically reduce the number of zeros in the data, especially for lowly expressed genes.
“By aggregating cells within each replicate, pseudobulk methods dramatically reduce the number of zeros in the data, especially for lowly expressed genes (Fig. 2a ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Pseudobulk methods abolished these false discoveries.
“In contrast, pseudobulk methods abolished these false discoveries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Pseudobulk methods abolished the false detection of DE genes.
“Pseudobulk methods abolished the false detection of DE genes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Shuffling the replicates produced a systematic decrease in the variance of gene expression, affecting 98.2% of genes in a dataset of bone marrow mononuclear cells stimulated with poly-I:C.
“We found that shuffling the replicates produced a systematic decrease in the variance of gene expression, affecting 98.2% of genes (Fig. 3e ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
In a dataset of human PBMCs exposed to interferon, failing to account for the intrinsic variability of biological replicates produced hundreds of DE genes between randomly assigned replicates.
“Failing to account for the intrinsic variability of biological replicates produced hundreds of DE genes between randomly assigned replicates (Fig. 4d and Supplementary Fig. 6a, b ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Single-cell DE methods displayed a systematic preference for highly expressed genes across the entire compendium of 46 scRNA-seq datasets.
“We found that single-cell DE methods displayed a systematic preference for highly expressed genes across the entire compendium (Fig. 2f ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Pseudobulk methods required only minutes per cell type in the compendium of 46 datasets.
“In contrast, pseudobulk methods required only minutes per cell type in our compendium of 46 datasets (Supplementary Fig. 10e-f ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Disabling the aggregation procedure and applying pseudobulk methods to individual cells abolished the superiority of the pseudobulk methods.
“Strikingly, this procedure abolished the superiority of the pseudobulk methods (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Fig. 4a ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
In simulated single-cell data with different degrees of heterogeneity between replicates in the absence of any difference between groups, single-cell methods identified hundreds of DE genes in the absence of any perturbation.
“Strikingly, single-cell methods identified hundreds of DE genes in the absence of any perturbation (Fig. 4b and Supplementary Fig. 4a ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
They detected significantly more variability between replicates in human datasets than in mouse datasets across 41 human and mouse scRNA-seq datasets.
“In agreement with our hypothesis, we detected significantly more variability between replicates in the human datasets (Fig. 4g ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
In datasets comprising 500 or more cells, GLMM performance converged to that of pseudobulk DE methods.
“However, in datasets comprising 500 or more cells, their performance converged to that of pseudobulk DE methods.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and edgeR-LRT identified largely distinct sets of DE genes, with only four genes overlapping between the two methods.
“These methods identified largely distinct sets of DE genes, with only four genes overlapping between the two methods.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Methods that compared individual cells performed poorly.
“In comparison, methods that compared individual cells performed poorly.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Pseudobulk methods more faithfully reflected the ground truth in GO term enrichment analyses, as captured in bulk RNA-seq.
“We found that pseudobulk methods again more faithfully reflected the ground truth, as captured in the bulk RNA-seq (Fig. 1e and Supplementary Fig. 1g ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
They detected the presence of numerous atrophic blood vessels below the level of injury.
“In line with the expected consequences of chronic hypoxia, we detected the presence of numerous atrophic blood vessels below the level of injury (Fig. 5i ).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Highly expressed genes exhibited the largest decrease in variance in pseudo-replicates.
“Moreover, we found that highly expressed genes exhibited the largest decrease in variance in pseudo-replicates, thus explaining the bias of single-cell methods towards highly expressed genes (Supplementary Fig. 4g-k ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Multifactorial quantification of whole-body kinematics revealed profound impairments in the ability of mice to produce locomotion after severe contusion of the mid-thoracic spinal cord.
“Multifactorial quantification of whole-body kinematics revealed profound impairments in the ability of the mice to produce locomotion (Fig. 5b and Supplementary Fig. 8a ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
The most pronounced differences between pseudobulk and single-cell methods emerged among highly expressed genes.
“Instead, the most pronounced differences between pseudobulk and single-cell methods emerged among highly expressed genes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Only three of thirteen genes called as DE by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test could be corroborated (p < 0.05, χ2 test).
“In marked contrast, only three of thirteen genes called as DE by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test could be corroborated (p < 0.05, χ 2 test; Fig. 5f-h ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
In a spatial transcriptomics dataset of ALS spinal cords, statistical methods that failed to account for variability between biological replicates identified thousands of DE genes within each region.
“Statistical methods that failed to account for variability between biological replicates identified thousands of DE genes within each region (Fig. 4f and Supplementary Fig. 6e ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
In the poly-I:C dataset, failing to account for the variable expression of Txnrd3 across replicates led to the spurious identification of this gene as differentially expressed.
“For instance, in the poly-I:C dataset, failing to account for the variable expression of Txnrd3 across replicates led to the spurious identification of this gene as differentially expressed (Fig. 3g ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
The number of false discoveries was reduced when additional replicates were introduced to the dataset.
“The number of false discoveries was reduced when additional replicates were introduced to the dataset (Supplementary Fig. 4c ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
They sequenced a total of 19,237 cells that encompassed all the major cell types of the lumbar spinal cord.
“We sequenced a total of 19,237 cells that encompassed all the major cell types of the lumbar spinal cord (Fig. 5d ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
False positives identified by single-cell DE methods were more highly expressed than those identified by pseudobulk methods.
“We found that false positives identified by single-cell DE methods were more highly expressed than those identified by pseudobulk methods (Fig. 2c and Supplementary Fig. 2b ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
In datasets of 25-50 cells, GLMMs could produce accurate results under very specific parameter combinations.
“In datasets of 25-50 cells, GLMMs could produce accurate results under very specific parameter combinations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
RNAscope validated five of the six genes called as DE by edgeR-LRT.
“RNAscope validated five of the six genes called as DE by edgeR-LRT.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Creating pseudo-replicates led to the reappearance of spurious DE genes.
“However, creating pseudo-replicates led to the reappearance of spurious DE genes (Fig. 4b-c and Supplementary Fig. 4a-b ), further corroborating the requirements for accurate DE analyses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
False-negatives overlooked by single-cell DE methods tended to be lowly expressed.
“Conversely, false-negatives overlooked by single-cell DE methods tended to be lowly expressed (Supplementary Fig. 2c-d ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Every comparison across the compendium of 46 datasets displayed the same decrease in the variance of gene expression.
“Every comparison displayed the same decrease in the variance of gene expression (Fig. 3f ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
There were minimal differences between pseudobulk and single-cell methods for lowly expressed genes.
“Contrary to our prediction, we observed minimal differences between pseudobulk and single-cell methods for lowly expressed genes (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Fig. 2a ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Pseudobulk methods avoided this bias.
“In contrast, pseudobulk methods avoided this bias.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
Introducing additional cells to the simulated data only exacerbated the underlying problem.
“In contrast, introducing additional cells to the simulated data only exacerbated the underlying problem (Supplementary Fig. 4d ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Results
The genes falsely called as DE were those whose expression was most variable between replicates.
“Moreover, in line with our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the failure of single-cell DE methods, the genes that were falsely called as DE were those whose expression was most variable between replicates (Fig. 4c and Supplementary Fig. 4b ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Methods
The variance of the most variable genes is disproportionately underestimated when discarding information about biological replicates.
“We performed a similar analysis correlating the original variance of gene expression to the ∆-variance, demonstrating that the variance of the most variable genes is disproportionately underestimated when discarding information about biological replicates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
- Findingown data§ Methods
Some statistical tests returned a large number of p-values below the double precision limit in R (approximately 2 × 10-308).
“We observed that some statistical tests returned a large number of p-values below the double precision limit in R (approximately 2 × 10 –308 )”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Discussion
Most studies published in the past two years have used inappropriate statistical methods for DE analysis.
“our observation that most studies published in the past two years have used inappropriate statistical methods for DE analysis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 500 most recent entries in the curated database are representative of scRNA-seq studies published in the past two years.
- Findingown data§ Discussion
Pseudobulk methods achieve the highest fidelity to the experimental ground truth at the levels of the transcriptome, proteome, and functional interpretation.
“we found that pseudobulk methods achieve the highest fidelity to the experimental ground truth at the levels of the transcriptome, proteome, and functional interpretation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 18 ground truth datasets are representative of single-cell experiments for assessing DE methods.
- Findingown data§ Methods
The mean ∆-variance across all genes decreased in all 46 datasets in the scRNA-seq compendium.
“we calculated the mean ∆-variance across all genes in each of the 46 datasets in our scRNA-seq compendium, observing a decrease in the variance in all 46 cases.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ Mixed models
The performance of DE methods is contingent on their ability to account for biological replicates.
“Having established that the performance of DE methods is contingent on their ability to account for biological replicates, we asked why mixed models failed to match the performance of pseudobulk methods.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 18 ground truth datasets are representative of single-cell experiments for assessing DE methods.
- Rests on an assumption: The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
- Findingown data§ Discussion
Most DE genes identified by the most commonly used statistical method are false discoveries in a systematic in vivo screen of the injured mouse spinal cord.
“we show through a systematic in vivo screen of the injured mouse spinal cord that most DE genes identified by the most commonly used statistical method are false discoveries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Methods
The variance of highly expressed genes is disproportionately underestimated when discarding information about biological replicates.
“We observed a significant negative correlation, confirming that the variance of highly expressed genes is disproportionately underestimated when discarding information about biological replicates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
- Findingown data
Methods that compared individual cells performed poorly compared to pseudobulk methods.
“In comparison, methods that compared individual cells performed poorly.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
False negatives overlooked by single-cell DE methods tended to be lowly expressed.
“Conversely, false-negatives overlooked by single-cell DE methods tended to be lowly expressed (Supplementary Fig. 2c-d).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation
The six top-performing DE methods aggregated cells within a biological replicate to form pseudobulks before applying a statistical test.
“These methods aggregated cells within a biological replicate, to form so-called ‘pseudobulks’, before applying a statistical test (Fig. 1c)18.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [18] source
- Findingown data
The fourteen selected DE methods have been used by almost 90% of recent scRNA-seq studies.
“Together, these methods have been used by almost 90% of recent studies (Fig. 1b).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The differences between pseudobulk and single-cell DE methods were highly significant.
“The differences between pseudobulk and single-cell methods were highly significant (Fig. 1d), and robust to the methodology used to quantify concordance (Supplementary Fig. 1a-d).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
The most widely used single-cell differential expression methods can discover hundreds of differentially expressed genes in the absence of biological differences.
“Indeed, the most widely used methods can discover hundreds of differentially expressed genes in the absence of biological differences.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Pseudobulk methods more faithfully reflected the ground truth in Gene Ontology term enrichment analyses than single-cell methods.
“We found that pseudobulk methods again more faithfully reflected the ground truth, as captured in the bulk RNA-seq (Fig. 1e and Supplementary Fig. 1g).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The differences between pseudobulk and single-cell DE methods were robust to the methodology used to quantify concordance.
“The differences between pseudobulk and single-cell methods were highly significant (Fig. 1d), and robust to the methodology used to quantify concordance (Supplementary Fig. 1a-d).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
All six of the top-performing DE methods shared a common analytical property.
“This analysis immediately revealed that all six of the top-performing methods shared a common analytical property.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Pseudobulk methods dramatically reduce the number of zeros in single-cell data, especially for lowly expressed genes.
“By aggregating cells within each replicate, pseudobulk methods dramatically reduce the number of zeros in the data, especially for lowly expressed genes (Fig. 2a).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Measurements of gene expression in single cells are inherently sparse.
- Findingown data
Single-cell methods produced a systematic excess of false positives compared to pseudobulk methods in fourteen datasets with at least six control replicates split randomly into synthetic groups.
“This systematic analysis confirmed that single-cell methods produced a systematic excess of false positives compared to pseudobulk methods (Fig. 4e).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Applying the aggregation procedure to random groups of cells to form pseudo-replicates re-emerged a bias towards highly expressed genes.
“This experiment induced a similar decrease in the performance of pseudobulk methods, combined with the re-emergence of a bias towards highly expressed genes (Fig. 3d and Supplementary Fig. 4d–f).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The emergence of a bias towards highly expressed genes paralleled the decrease in performance when aggregation was disabled.
“The emergence of a bias towards highly expressed genes paralleled this decrease in performance (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Fig. 4b-c).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Single-cell DE methods displayed a systematic preference for highly expressed genes across a compendium of 46 scRNA-seq datasets.
“We found that single-cell DE methods displayed a systematic preference for highly expressed genes across the entire compendium (Fig. 2f).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The injury triggered the aberrant growth of new synapses throughout lumbar segments.
“We found that the injury triggered the aberrant growth of new synapses throughout lumbar segments, combined with the emergence of abnormal segmental reflexes (Fig. 5a and Supplementary Fig. 8a).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Applying the aggregation procedure to random groups of cells to form pseudo-replicates induced a similar decrease in the performance of pseudobulk methods.
“This experiment induced a similar decrease in the performance of pseudobulk methods, combined with the re-emergence of a bias towards highly expressed genes (Fig. 3d and Supplementary Fig. 4d–f).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Every comparison across a compendium of 46 datasets displayed the same decrease in the variance of gene expression when replicates were shuffled.
“Every comparison displayed the same decrease in the variance of gene expression (Fig. 3f).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The resulting DE genes from unperturbed samples were enriched for hundreds of Gene Ontology terms despite a complete absence of biological perturbation.
“The resulting DE genes were enriched for hundreds of Gene Ontology (GO) terms, despite a complete absence of biological perturbation (Supplementary Fig. 6c).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Pseudobulk methods abolished the false detection of DE genes in simulated data.
“Pseudobulk methods abolished the false detection of DE genes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The genes falsely called as DE by single-cell methods were those whose expression was most variable between replicates.
“Moreover, in line with our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the failure of single-cell DE methods, the genes that were falsely called as DE were those whose expression was most variable between replicates (Fig. 4c and Supplementary Fig. 4b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The injury triggered the emergence of abnormal segmental reflexes.
“We found that the injury triggered the aberrant growth of new synapses throughout lumbar segments, combined with the emergence of abnormal segmental reflexes (Fig. 5a and Supplementary Fig. 8a).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Mice that received a severe contusion of the mid-thoracic spinal cord showed profound impairments in the ability to produce locomotion.
“Multifactorial quantification of whole-body kinematics revealed profound impairments in the ability of the mice to produce locomotion (Fig. 5b and Supplementary Fig. 8a).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Introducing additional cells to the simulated data exacerbated the underlying problem of false discoveries.
“In contrast, introducing additional cells to the simulated data only exacerbated the underlying problem (Supplementary Fig. 4d).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The number of false discoveries was reduced when additional replicates were introduced to the simulated data.
“The number of false discoveries was reduced when additional replicates were introduced to the dataset (Supplementary Fig. 4c).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Pseudobulk methods abolished these false discoveries in the spatial transcriptomics dataset.
“In contrast, pseudobulk methods abolished these false discoveries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Significantly more variability between replicates was detected in human datasets than in mouse datasets across 41 human and mouse scRNA-seq datasets.
“In agreement with our hypothesis, we detected significantly more variability between replicates in the human datasets (Fig. 4g).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Many factors that produce variability between biological replicates can be minimized in animal models, including genetic background, environment, intensity and timing of the biological perturbation, and sample processing.
- Rests on an assumption: Sources of variation between biological replicates are inherently more difficult to control in experiments involving human subjects.
- Findingown data
Statistical methods that failed to account for variability between biological replicates identified thousands of DE genes within each region of a spatial transcriptomics dataset from control mice.
“Statistical methods that failed to account for variability between biological replicates identified thousands of DE genes within each region (Fig. 4f and Supplementary Fig. 6e).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [24] source
- Findingown data
Pseudobulk methods avoided the bias towards identifying abundant spike-ins as DE.
“In contrast, pseudobulk methods avoided this bias.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Pseudobulk methods required only minutes per cell type in a compendium of 46 datasets.
“In contrast, pseudobulk methods required only minutes per cell type in our compendium of 46 datasets (Supplementary Fig. 10e-f).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In an in vivo screen of the injured mouse spinal cord, most DE genes identified by the most commonly used statistical method are false discoveries.
“For example, we show through a systematic in vivo screen of the injured mouse spinal cord that most DE genes identified by the most commonly used statistical method are false discoveries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Endothelial cells underwent the most profound transcriptional changes in the spinal cord below the injury.
“This unbiased analysis indicated that endothelial cells underwent the most profound transcriptional changes in the spinal cord below the injury (Fig. 5e).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The computational resources required to fit the best-performing GLMMs were enormous.
“Moreover, the computational resources required to fit the best-performing GLMMs were enormous.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In a literature review of the 500 most recent scRNA-seq studies, 205 of the 500 studies conducted DE analysis between biological conditions.
“In total, 205 of the 500 studies conducted DE analysis between biological conditions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
A total of 19,237 cells sequenced encompassed all the major cell types of the lumbar spinal cord.
“We sequenced a total of 19,237 cells that encompassed all the major cell types of the lumbar spinal cord (Fig. 5d).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Even in downsampled datasets, DE analysis of a single cell type took an average of 13.5 h.
“Even in downsampled datasets, DE analysis of a single cell type took an average of 13.5 h (Supplementary Fig. 10c-d).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Only three of thirteen genes called as DE by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test could be corroborated by RNAscope.
“In marked contrast, only three of thirteen genes called as DE by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test could be corroborated (p < 0.05, χ2 test; Fig. 5f-h).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
These mechanisms are universal across an additional 46 single-cell RNA-seq studies.
“We demonstrate the universality of these mechanisms in multifaceted datasets from an additional 46 single-cell RNA-seq studies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
- Findingown data
Across all 46 datasets in the scRNA-seq compendium, the mean ∆-variance across all genes showed a decrease in variance.
“Subsequently, we calculated the mean ∆-variance across all genes in each of the 46 datasets in our scRNA-seq compendium, observing a decrease in the variance in all 46 cases.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
- Interpretationown data§ Discussion
Methods that fail to account for the variability of biological replicates can produce hundreds of false discoveries in the absence of any biological difference.
“Conversely, methods that fail to account for the variability of biological replicates can produce hundreds of false discoveries in the absence of any biological difference.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Results
Both experiments entailed a loss of information about biological replicates.
“We recognized that both experiments entailed a loss of information about biological replicates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Discussion
The central principle underlying valid DE analysis is the ability of statistical methods to account for the intrinsic variability of biological replicates.
“Here, we demonstrate that the central principle underlying valid DE analysis is the ability of statistical methods to account for the intrinsic variability of biological replicates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Discussion
By performing a statistical inference at the level of individual cells, single-cell DE methods conflate variability between biological replicates with the effect of a biological perturbation.
“Our results demonstrate that by performing a statistical inference at the level of individual cells, single-cell DE methods conflate variability between biological replicates with the effect of a biological perturbation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Results
Single-cell methods have a systematic tendency to identify highly expressed genes as DE even when their expression remained unchanged.
“Together, these findings implied a systematic tendency for single-cell methods to identify highly expressed genes as DE, even when their expression remained unchanged.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation§ Results
The presence of these genes supports the establishment of a chronically hypoxic state in the lumbar spinal cord.
“Several of the validated edgeR-LRT genes, including Slc7a11 and Igfbp6 , are involved in the response to hypoxia within endothelial cells, supporting the establishment of a chronically hypoxic state in the lumbar spinal cord 31 – 33 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Results
The bias of single-cell methods towards highly expressed genes is explained by the largest decrease in variance in pseudo-replicates for highly expressed genes.
“Moreover, we found that highly expressed genes exhibited the largest decrease in variance in pseudo-replicates, thus explaining the bias of single-cell methods towards highly expressed genes (Supplementary Fig. 4g-k ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Results
These observations illustrate the potential for single-cell DE methods to produce false discoveries.
“Together, these observations illustrate the potential for single-cell DE methods to produce false discoveries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Results
Failing to account for differences between replicates could lead methods to misattribute the inherent variability between replicates to the effect of the perturbation.
“We reasoned that failing to account for these differences could lead methods to misattribute the inherent variability between replicates to the effect of the perturbation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Results
Accounting for biological replicates is critical for any DE analysis.
“While we show that accounting for biological replicates is critical for any DE analysis, this result stresses the paramount importance of addressing this issue in single-cell studies of human tissue.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Results
Failing to account for biological replicates causes single-cell methods to systematically underestimate the variance of gene expression.
“In contrast, failing to account for biological replicates causes single-cell methods to systematically underestimate the variance of gene expression.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Results
The inferior performance of single-cell methods can be attributed to their bias towards highly expressed genes.
“Together, these experiments suggest that the inferior performance of single-cell methods can be attributed to their bias towards highly expressed genes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Discussion
The appearance of false discoveries is a universal phenomenon in single-cell differential expression analyses.
“Here, we show that the appearance of false discoveries is a universal phenomenon.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Results
Accounting for this variability allows pseudobulk methods to correctly identify changes in gene expression caused by a biological perturbation.
“Accounting for this variability allows pseudobulk methods to correctly identify changes in gene expression caused by a biological perturbation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Discussion
Accounting for this variability dictates the biological accuracy of statistical methods.
“Accounting for this variability dictates the biological accuracy of statistical methods.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Results
The decrease in the variance of gene expression led statistical tests to attribute small changes in gene expression to the effect of the perturbation.
“The decrease in the variance of gene expression led statistical tests to attribute small changes in gene expression to the effect of the perturbation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Discussion
The use of inappropriate statistical methodology can produce false discoveries that compromise the biological interpretation of a single-cell experiment.
“we demonstrate that the use of inappropriate statistical methodology can produce false discoveries that compromise the biological interpretation of a single-cell experiment.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 18 ground truth datasets are representative of single-cell experiments for assessing DE methods.
- Interpretationreasoning§ Results
Statistical methods for differential expression must account for the intrinsic variability of biological replicates to generate biologically accurate results in single-cell data.
“Statistical methods for differential expression must account for the intrinsic variability of biological replicates to generate biologically accurate results in single-cell data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Results
The variability between biological replicates can confound the identification of genes affected by a biological perturbation.
“These experiments demonstrated that the variability between biological replicates can confound the identification of genes affected by a biological perturbation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Results
In practice, pseudobulk approaches provide an excellent trade-off between speed and accuracy for single-cell DE analysis.
“These observations suggest that, in practice, pseudobulk approaches provide an excellent trade-off between speed and accuracy for single-cell DE analysis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Discussion
These mechanisms are universal in multifaceted datasets from an additional 46 single-cell RNA-seq studies.
“We demonstrate the universality of these mechanisms in multifaceted datasets from an additional 46 single-cell RNA-seq studies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Methods
Failing to account for biological replicates induces a bias towards highly expressed genes because these genes are also more variably expressed.
“in partial correlation analyses, only gene expression variance remained correlated with ∆-variance, implying that failing to account for biological replicates induces a bias towards highly expressed genes because these genes are also more variably expressed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
- Interpretationreasoning§ Discussion
Failing to account for biological and technical variability makes certain genes disproportionately likely to be spuriously identified as DE.
“we elucidate the progression of mechanisms by which failing to account for biological and technical variability makes certain genes disproportionately likely to be spuriously identified as DE.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 18 ground truth datasets are representative of single-cell experiments for assessing DE methods.
- Interpretationown data§ Discussion
Single-cell DE methods are poised to produce false discoveries.
“Our results demonstrate that single-cell DE methods are poised to produce false discoveries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 18 ground truth datasets are representative of single-cell experiments for assessing DE methods.
- Interpretationreasoning§ Discussion
Many published findings may be false.
“Our findings suggest that many published findings may be false.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 18 ground truth datasets are representative of single-cell experiments for assessing DE methods.
- Premisereasoning
The resolution of bulk RNA-seq is insufficient to characterize the multifaceted responses to biological perturbations.
“Consequently, the resolution of bulk RNA-seq is insufficient to characterize the multifaceted responses to biological perturbations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
False discoveries can be avoided using statistical methodologies that account for between-replicate variation.
“However, we show that false discoveries can be avoided using statistical methodologies that account for between-replicate variation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The relative performance of single-cell differential expression methods is contingent on their ability to account for variation between biological replicates.
“Here, we show that the relative performance of these methods is contingent on their ability to account for variation between biological replicates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Single-cell methods have a systematic tendency to identify highly expressed genes as DE even when their expression remains unchanged.
“Together, these findings implied a systematic tendency for single-cell methods to identify highly expressed genes as DE, even when their expression remained unchanged.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The largest decrease in variance for highly expressed genes explains the bias of single-cell methods towards highly expressed genes.
“Moreover, we found that highly expressed genes exhibited the largest decrease in variance in pseudo-replicates, thus explaining the bias of single-cell methods towards highly expressed genes (Supplementary Fig. 4g-k).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Accounting for variability between biological replicates allows pseudobulk methods to correctly identify changes in gene expression caused by a biological perturbation.
“Accounting for this variability allows pseudobulk methods to correctly identify changes in gene expression caused by a biological perturbation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Pseudobulk methods possess a common analytical property that allows them to avoid the bias towards highly expressed genes.
“These findings implied that pseudobulk methods possess a common analytical property that allows them to avoid this bias.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The same fundamental issues affecting single-cell DE also affect other high-dimensional assays, including spatial transcriptomics.
“Understanding these mechanisms led us to discover that the same fundamental issues affect other high-dimensional assays, including spatial transcriptomics, and are most likely to manifest in studies of human tissue, suggesting that inference at the level of biological replicates is critical to understand the cellular and molecular basis for human disease.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
- Premisenone given
The best possible approximation to biological ground truth in a scRNA-seq experiment is a matched bulk RNA-seq dataset in the same purified cell type, exposed to the same perturbation under identical experimental conditions, and sequenced in the same laboratory.
“We reasoned that the best possible approximation to the biological ground truth in a scRNA-seq experiment would consist of a matched bulk RNA-seq dataset in the same purified cell type, exposed to the same perturbation under identical experimental conditions, and sequenced in the same laboratory.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Single-cell DE methods have the potential to produce false discoveries.
“Together, these observations illustrate the potential for single-cell DE methods to produce false discoveries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The false-discovery problem in single-cell DE is straightforward to correct with the use of DE methods that account for variability between replicates.
“However, this concerning possibility is straightforward to correct with the use of DE methods that account for variability between replicates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 18 ground truth datasets are representative of single-cell experiments for assessing DE methods.
- Interpretationreasoning
These fundamental issues are most likely to manifest in studies of human tissue.
“Understanding these mechanisms led us to discover that the same fundamental issues affect other high-dimensional assays, including spatial transcriptomics, and are most likely to manifest in studies of human tissue, suggesting that inference at the level of biological replicates is critical to understand the cellular and molecular basis for human disease.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
- Interpretationown data
The appearance of false discoveries in single-cell differential expression is a universal phenomenon.
“Here, we show that the appearance of false discoveries is a universal phenomenon.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 18 ground truth datasets are representative of single-cell experiments for assessing DE methods.
- May combine two claims. 21
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ DiscussionThe presence of variability between replicates is unavoidable, and can be attributed to both technical factors and intrinsic biological differences.
“The presence of variability between replicates is unavoidable, and can be attributed to both technical factors and intrinsic biological differences 22 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [22] source
The Results section, “Batch effects associated with UMI-based single cell data” (page unavailable), reports variation associated with both individual origin and technical C1 batches. The paper supports those two sources of variation in its single-cell study, but does not establish that variability between replicates is universally unavoidable. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ ResultsMixed models should benefit from increased statistical power compared to pseudobulk methods by explicitly modeling variation both within and between biological replicates.
“By explicitly modeling variation both within and between biological replicates, mixed models should benefit from increased statistical power compared to pseudobulk methods 9 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] 2020, muscat detects subpopulation-specific state transitions from multi-sample multi-condition singlecell transcriptomics data, Nat. Commun source
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ MethodsPrevious benchmarks of DE analysis methods for single-cell transcriptomics have relied heavily on simulated data, or else have compared the results of different methods in scenarios where no ground truth was available.
“Previous benchmarks of DE analysis methods for single-cell transcriptomics have relied heavily on simulated data, or else have compared the results of different methods in scenarios where no ground truth was available 10 , 17 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [10] 2021, A practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies, Nat. Commun source
The Introduction describes this paper’s benchmark of 16 single-cell differential-state analysis methods using simulated data, so it supports the simulation-based part by example. Its discussion of earlier comparison studies (Introduction; page unavailable) does not say they relied heavily on simulations or compared methods without ground truth. The latter claim is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [17] source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ DiscussionThe possibility that conflating variability between replicates with the biological effect of interest can lead to spurious findings has previously been recognized.
“The possibility that conflating variability between replicates with the biological effect of interest can lead to spurious findings has previously been recognized 18 , 34 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checkedClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationInferences about DE are generally more accurate for highly expressed genes.
“Previous studies demonstrated that inferences about DE are generally more accurate for highly expressed genes19,20.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [19] source
Section 4.2 discusses how summation affects DE rankings and the significance of genes driven by outlier cells, but it does not compare inference accuracy by gene expression level. Searches for highly and lowly expressed genes likewise found no passage in our copy establishing that DE inferences are generally more accurate for highly expressed genes. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [20] source
The section “Most statistical analysis methods for RNA-seq suffer from high FDRs” reports that false-positive DE calls tended to involve genes with lower expression. The Discussion likewise links low-expression false positives to large datasets analyzed with parametric methods. This supports the direction of the claim, but the paper does not establish that DE inferences are generally more accurate for highly expressed genes across methods and conditions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe sparsity and heterogeneity of single-cell data initially encouraged the development of specialized statistical methods to identify differentially expressed mRNAs.
“The sparsity and heterogeneity of single-cell data initially encouraged the development of specialized statistical methods to identify differentially expressed mRNAs7,8.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe maturation of single-cell technologies enables large-scale comparisons of cell states within complex tissues, providing the appropriate resolution to dissect cell-type-specific responses to perturbation.
“The maturation of single-cell technologies now enables large-scale comparisons of cell states within complex tissues, thus providing the appropriate resolution to dissect cell-type-specific responses to perturbation5,6.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [5] source
The paper reports profiling thousands of cells and identifying cell-type-specific responses to IFN-β stimulation in peripheral blood immune cells (Abstract; page unavailable). It does not demonstrate large-scale comparisons within complex tissues: the same section says applying the method to solid tissue remains challenging. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [6] 2019, Single-cell transcriptomic analysis of Alzheimer’s disease, Nature source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe lumbar spinal cord undergoes multifaceted changes that lead to irreversible degradation of neuronal function after spinal cord injury.
“We specifically focused on the lumbar spinal cord, since this region undergoes multifaceted changes that lead to the irreversible degradation of neuronal function25,26.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [25] source
- cites [26] Hao, Y. et al. Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell data. Preprint at http://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.12.335331 (2020). source
The Results passages concern immune-cell populations, and the Discussion describes multimodal single-cell analysis; neither addresses changes in the lumbar spinal cord or neuronal function after injury. Searches for the claimed spinal-cord injury and neuronal-degradation terms found no relevant passage in our copy. No page numbers were provided. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationSeveral validated edgeR-LRT genes, including Slc7a11 and Igfbp6, are involved in the response to hypoxia within endothelial cells, supporting the establishment of a chronically hypoxic state in the lumbar spinal cord.
“Several of the validated edgeR-LRT genes, including Slc7a11 and Igfbp6, are involved in the response to hypoxia within endothelial cells, supporting the establishment of a chronically hypoxic state in the lumbar spinal cord31–33.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked- cites [31] source
The Methods (§2.1) describe single-cell qPCR datasets of T cells, and the Results (§3.5) evaluate a differential-expression LRT. Searches for Slc7a11, Igfbp6, endothelial hypoxia, and the lumbar spinal cord found no passage addressing the attributed biological claim. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [32] source
The Results and discussion section describes DESeq2 analyses, including an example using rat dorsal root ganglion data, but does not address hypoxia in endothelial cells or the lumbar spinal cord. Searches for Slc7a11, Igfbp6, edgeR-LRT, and chronic hypoxia found no passage supporting the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [33] source
The Introduction identifies edgeR as software for differential-expression analysis, supporting the reference to edgeR as a method. But the Model section describes an exact test, not an LRT, and the paper does not address Slc7a11, Igfbp6, endothelial hypoxia, or the lumbar spinal cord. It therefore cannot support the sentence’s biological conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPrevious benchmarks of DE analysis methods for single-cell transcriptomics have relied heavily on simulated data or compared methods without ground truth.
“Previous benchmarks of DE analysis methods for single-cell transcriptomics have relied heavily on simulated data, or else have compared the results of different methods in scenarios where no ground truth was available10,17.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [10] 2021, A practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies, Nat. Commun source
The Discussion (page not provided) says that papers evaluating single-cell-specific tools used simulations, supporting the simulated-data part of the claim. Our copy does not say that previous benchmarks compared methods without ground truth. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [17] source
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data§ ResultsA systematic analysis of fourteen datasets with at least six replicates in the control condition confirmed that single-cell methods produced a systematic excess of false positives compared to pseudobulk methods.
“This systematic analysis confirmed that single-cell methods produced a systematic excess of false positives compared to pseudobulk methods (Fig. 4e ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ ResultsThe Wilcoxon rank-sum test and edgeR-LRT each nominated an additional 44 and 12 genes as DE, respectively.
“Conversely, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and edgeR-LRT each nominated an additional 44 and 12 genes as DE, respectively (Supplementary Fig. 9a ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ ResultsThe injury triggered the aberrant growth of new synapses throughout lumbar segments, combined with the emergence of abnormal segmental reflexes.
“We found that the injury triggered the aberrant growth of new synapses throughout lumbar segments, combined with the emergence of abnormal segmental reflexes (Fig. 5a and Supplementary Fig. 8a ).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ ResultsThe differences between pseudobulk and single-cell methods were highly significant and robust to the methodology used to quantify concordance.
“The differences between pseudobulk and single-cell methods were highly significant (Fig. 1d ), and robust to the methodology used to quantify concordance (Supplementary Fig. 1a-d ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ ResultsApplying the aggregation procedure to random groups of cells (pseudo-replicates) induced a similar decrease in the performance of pseudobulk methods, combined with the re-emergence of a bias towards highly expressed genes.
“This experiment induced a similar decrease in the performance of pseudobulk methods, combined with the re-emergence of a bias towards highly expressed genes (Fig. 3d and Supplementary Fig. 4d–f ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ ResultsThe fourteen selected DE methods have been used by almost 90% of recent studies.
“Together, these methods have been used by almost 90% of recent studies (Fig. 1b ).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ ResultsThe computational resources required to fit the best-performing GLMMs were enormous; even in downsampled datasets, DE analysis of a single cell type took an average of 13.5 h.
“Moreover, the computational resources required to fit the best-performing GLMMs were enormous. Even in downsampled datasets, DE analysis of a single cell type took an average of 13.5 h (Supplementary Fig. 10c-d ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based).
Findingnone given§ Mixed modelsMixed models failed to match the performance of pseudobulk methods.
“we asked why mixed models failed to match the performance of pseudobulk methods.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ Methods205 of the 500 studies conducted DE analysis between biological conditions.
“In total, 205 of the 500 studies conducted DE analysis between biological conditions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataSingle-cell methods identified hundreds of DE genes in simulated data with different degrees of heterogeneity between replicates in the absence of any difference between groups.
“Strikingly, single-cell methods identified hundreds of DE genes in the absence of any perturbation (Fig. 4b and Supplementary Fig. 4a).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningNumerous atrophic blood vessels were detected below the level of injury.
“In line with the expected consequences of chronic hypoxia, we detected the presence of numerous atrophic blood vessels below the level of injury (Fig. 5i).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ ResultsThis underestimation of the variance biases single-cell methods towards highly expressed genes, compromising their ability to generate biologically accurate results.
“This underestimation of the variance biases single-cell methods towards highly expressed genes, compromising their ability to generate biologically accurate results.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ ResultsValid single-cell DE analysis that accounted for variation between biological replicates yielded reproducible conclusions that could be validated in vivo.
“Conversely, valid single-cell DE analysis that accounted for variation between biological replicates yielded reproducible conclusions that could be validated in vivo.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ ResultsThis chaotic reorganization of circuits below the SCI has been linked to spasticity and neuronal dysfunction.
“This chaotic reorganization of circuits below the SCI has been linked to spasticity and neuronal dysfunction (Fig. 5b and Supplementary Fig. 8b-c ) 25 , 26 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ ResultsAggregating random groups of cells to form pseudo-replicates, or ignoring replicates altogether in comparisons of single cells, both introduced a bias towards highly expressed genes and a corresponding loss of performance.
“Aggregating random groups of cells to form pseudo-replicates, or ignoring replicates altogether in comparisons of single cells, both introduced a bias towards highly expressed genes and a corresponding loss of performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premisereasoning§ DiscussionThe pervasiveness of false discoveries in published analyses of single-cell data and the propensity for these false discoveries to affect the biological conclusions of a study have remained unclear.
“Consequently, the pervasiveness of false discoveries in published analyses of single-cell data and the propensity for these false discoveries to affect the biological conclusions of a study have remained unclear.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ Mixed modelsThe enormous computational requirements of the GLMMs prevented evaluation in the full ground truth datasets; GLMMs were instead analyzed on downsampled datasets containing between 25 and 1,000 cells.
“The enormous computational requirements of the GLMMs prevented us from evaluating these models in the full ground truth datasets; instead, we analyzed a series of downsampled datasets, each containing between 25 and 1,000 cells.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone given§ DiscussionThese issues are most likely to manifest in studies of human tissue.
“and are most likely to manifest in studies of human tissue”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Premisenone given§ MethodsThe best possible approximation to the biological ground truth in a scRNA-seq experiment would consist of a matched bulk RNA-seq dataset in the same purified cell type, exposed to the same perturbation under identical experimental conditions, and sequenced in the same laboratory.
“We reasoned that the best possible approximation to the biological ground truth in a scRNA-seq experiment would consist of a matched bulk RNA-seq dataset in the same purified cell type, exposed to the same perturbation under identical experimental conditions, and sequenced in the same laboratory.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
Interpretationreasoning§ DiscussionInference at the level of biological replicates is critical to understand the cellular and molecular basis for human disease.
“suggesting that inference at the level of biological replicates is critical to understand the cellular and molecular basis for human disease.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationreasoning§ DiscussionThe same fundamental issues affect other high-dimensional assays, including spatial transcriptomics.
“Understanding these mechanisms led us to discover that the same fundamental issues affect other high-dimensional assays, including spatial transcriptomics”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone givenSimulations require specifying a model from which synthetic patterns of differential expression are generated.
“However, simulations require specifying a model from which synthetic patterns of differential expression are generated.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataMethods that ignore variation between biological replicates are biased and prone to false discoveries.
“Methods that ignore this inevitable variation are biased and prone to false discoveries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSingle-cell RNA-seq enables the quantification of RNA abundance at the resolution of individual cells.
“Single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) enables the quantification of RNA abundance at the resolution of individual cells4.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [4] 2018, From tissues to cell types and back: single-cell gene expression analysis of tissue architecture, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci source
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAggregating random groups of cells to form pseudo-replicates, or ignoring replicates altogether in comparisons of single cells, introduced a bias towards highly expressed genes and a corresponding loss of performance.
“Aggregating random groups of cells to form pseudo-replicates, or ignoring replicates altogether in comparisons of single cells, both introduced a bias towards highly expressed genes and a corresponding loss of performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningBoth aggregating random groups of cells to form pseudo-replicates and ignoring replicates altogether in comparisons of single cells entail a loss of information about biological replicates.
“We recognized that both experiments entailed a loss of information about biological replicates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAccounting for biological replicates is critical for any DE analysis, and this issue is of paramount importance in single-cell studies of human tissue.
“While we show that accounting for biological replicates is critical for any DE analysis, this result stresses the paramount importance of addressing this issue in single-cell studies of human tissue.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningUnderestimation of variance biases single-cell methods towards highly expressed genes, compromising their ability to generate biologically accurate results.
“This underestimation of the variance biases single-cell methods towards highly expressed genes, compromising their ability to generate biologically accurate results.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe AUCC results were insensitive to the precise value of k.
“To evaluate the concordance of DE analysis, we used k = 500 except where otherwise noted, but found our results were insensitive to the precise value of k.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe enormous computational requirements of the GLMMs prevented evaluation of these models in the full ground truth datasets; instead, a series of downsampled datasets containing between 25 and 1,000 cells was analyzed.
“The enormous computational requirements of the GLMMs prevented us from evaluating these models in the full ground truth datasets; instead, we analyzed a series of downsampled datasets, each containing between 25 and 1,000 cells.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
The closest possible approximation to the experimental ground truth can be obtained from matched bulk and scRNA-seq performed on the same population of purified cells, exposed to the same perturbations, and sequenced in the same laboratories.
“We posited that the closest possible approximation to this ground truth could be obtained from matched bulk and scRNA-seq performed on the same population of purified cells, exposed to the same perturbations, and sequenced in the same laboratories.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Measurements of gene expression in single cells are inherently sparse.
“Measurements of gene expression in single cells are inherently sparse.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many factors that produce variability between biological replicates can be minimized in animal models, including genetic background, environment, intensity and timing of the biological perturbation, and sample processing.
“Many of the factors that produce this variability between replicates can be minimized in animal models, including the genetic background, environment, intensity and timing of the biological perturbation, and sample processing.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sources of variation between biological replicates are inherently more difficult to control in experiments involving human subjects.
“In contrast, these sources of variation are inherently more difficult to control in experiments involving human subjects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The pervasiveness of false discoveries in published analyses of single-cell data and the propensity for these false discoveries to affect the biological conclusions of a study have remained unclear.
“Consequently, the pervasiveness of false discoveries in published analyses of single-cell data and the propensity for these false discoveries to affect the biological conclusions of a study have remained unclear.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 500 most recent entries in the curated database are representative of scRNA-seq studies published in the past two years.
“we limited our analysis to the 500 most recently published studies”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 18 ground truth datasets are representative of single-cell experiments for assessing DE methods.
“which led us to compile a resource of eighteen ground truth datasets from four publications12–15”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 46 published scRNA-seq datasets in the compendium are representative of single-cell RNA-seq studies generally.
“We assembled a compendium of 46 published single-cell or single-nucleus RNA-seq studies (Supplementary Fig. 3), and performed DE analyses across this compendium to establish the generality of our conclusions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Randomly splitting a control group into artificial control and treatment groups creates a valid null distribution for DE analysis.
“For each of these studies, we split the control group randomly into artificial ‘control’ and ‘treatment’ groups, and performed DE analysis.”
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?
Demultiplexing of pooled scRNA-seq is required to associate metadata with individual samples to account for between sample variation, replicate strengthened differential expression analysis, and confirmation of sample representation across scRNA-seq datasets and cell clusters.
“Demultiplexing of pooled scRNA-seq is required to associate metadata with individual samples to account for between sample variation, replicate strengthened differential expression analysis, and confirmation of sample representation across scRNA-seq datasets and cell clusters (Squair et al, 2021; Zimmerman et al, 2021).”
From Evaluation of genetic demultiplexing of single-cell sequencing data from model species (2023) · cites this paper as Squair et al, 2021
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDifferential gene expression analysis was conducted using a pseudobulk approach to mitigate Type I error inflation.
“DGE analysis was conducted using a pseudobulk approach to mitigate Type I error inflation [25].”
From Cardiac Macrophages Exhibit Dynamic Heterogeneity and Functional Specialization During Experimental Autoimmune Myocarditis. (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
The lack of biological replicates is a major cause of false discoveries in scRNA-seq.
“This is a serious drawback as the lack of biological replicates has also been shown to be a major cause of false discoveries (Hicks et al, 2018; Squair et al, 2021).”
From Evaluation of genetic demultiplexing of single-cell sequencing data from model species (2023) · cites this paper as Squair et al, 2021
Given a sufficient sample size, pseudo-bulk expression profiles are likely suitable for co-expression network analysis.
“suggesting that, given a sufficient sample size, pseudo-bulk expression profiles are likely suitable for co-expression network analysis.”
From hdWGCNA identifies co-expression networks in high-dimensional transcriptomics data (2023) · cites this paper as [17]
The Results section on pseudobulk methods reports improved differential-expression analysis when cells are aggregated within biological replicates. Our copy does not address whether pseudobulk expression profiles are suitable for co-expression network analysis at a sufficient sample size; searches for co-expression networks and sample size found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredModeling pseudobulk counts prevents pseudo-replication bias.
“On the one hand, modeling pseudobulk counts has been demonstrated to prevent pseudo-replication bias36,37.”
From Transcriptome-wide analysis of differential expression in perturbation atlases (2025) · cites this paper as [36]
Failure 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.”
From Transcriptome-wide analysis of differential expression in perturbation atlases (2025) · cites this paper as [36]
Seurat, DESeq2, edgeR, and Limma are among the top methods for discovering differentially expressed genes using single-cell data.
“Previous benchmark study showed that Seurat18, DESeq226, edgeR27, and Limma25 are among the top methods in discovering differentially expressed genes using single-cell data28.”
From ASGARD is a single-cell guided pipeline to aid repurposing of drugs (2023) · cites this paper as [28]
Single-cell-specific differential gene expression methods systematically underestimate gene expression variance and are prone to wrongly labelling highly expressed genes as differentially expressed.
“Single-cell-specific methods were found to systematically underestimate the variance of gene expression and to be prone to wrongly labelling highly expressed genes as differentially expressed86.”
From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [86]
Pseudoreplication leads to an inflated false discovery rate because differential gene expression methods do not account for the inherent correlation of replicates.
“Pseudoreplication leads to an inflated false discovery rate (FDR) as DGE methods do not account for the inherent correlation of replicates (cells from the same individual)86–88.”
From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [86]
Methods designed for bulk RNA-seq data perform favourably for differential gene expression analysis.
“but methods designed for bulk RNA-seq data perform favourably84–86.”
From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [86]
The pseudobulk approach in combination with classical differential gene expression methods such as edgeR and limma-voom outperforms single cell specific methods and mixed models in multi-sample DE analysis.
“Two benchmarking studies, one applying the aforementioned simulation tool and one using different example data sets, demonstrated that the “pseudobulk” approach in combination with classical differential gene expression methods such as edgeR44 and limma-voom45 outperforms single cell specific methods and mixed models in multi sample DE analysis43,46.”
From scPower accelerates and optimizes the design of multi-sample single cell transcriptomic studies (2021) · cites this paper as [46]
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.
Human and mouse dataset count differs between Results and Methods
MinorThe Results say variability was assessed in 41 human and mouse datasets, whereas the Methods specify 38 datasets, comprising 18 human and 20 mouse datasets.
“we calculated the variability between replicates within 41 human and mouse scRNA-seq datasets.”
“we computed the mean ∆-variance across all genes in the 38 human or mouse scRNA-seq datasets in our compendium (n = 18 human datasets and 20 mouse datasets).”
Number of edgeR-LRT RNAscope probes conflicts with the validation count
MinorThe Methods claim probes were obtained for seven edgeR-LRT genes but name only six. The Results also describe six edgeR-LRT genes in the RNAscope validation.
“7 genes identified by edgeR-LRT (Slc7a11, catalog no. 422511; Gjb2, catalog no. 518881; Pi16, catalog no. 451311; Rbp4, catalog no. 508501; Col1a1, catalog no. 319371; Igfbp6, catalog no. 425721).”
“RNAscope validated five of the six genes called as DE by edgeR-LRT.”
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 · see citing works
Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J., & Smyth, G. K. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 · Cited by 41,364 · see citing works
limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies
Ritchie, M. E., Phipson, B., Wu, D., Hu, Y., Law, C. W., Shi, W., & Smyth, G. K. (2015) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkv007 · Cited by 40,458 · see citing works
Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell data
Hao, Y., Hao, S., Andersen-Nissen, E., Mauck, W. M., Zheng, S., Butler, A., Lee, M. J., Wilk, A. J., Darby, C., Zagar, M., et al. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.10.12.335331 · Cited by 15,508 · see citing works
Comprehensive Integration of Single-Cell Data
Stuart, T., Butler, A., Hoffman, P., Hafemeister, C., Papalexi, E., Mauck, W. M., Hao, Y., Stoeckius, M., Smibert, P., & Satija, R. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.031 · Cited by 15,453 · see citing works
RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics
Wang, Z., Gerstein, M., & Snyder, M. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2484 · Cited by 13,174 · see citing works
SCANPY: large-scale single-cell gene expression data analysis
Wolf, F. A., Angerer, P., & Theis, F. J. (2018) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1382-0 · Cited by 8,881 · 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
McCarthy, D. J., Chen, Y., & Smyth, G. K. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks042 · Cited by 5,195 · see citing works
Hafemeister, C., & Satija, R. (2019) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1874-1 · Cited by 4,479 · see citing works
La Manno, G., Soldatov, R., Zeisel, A., Braun, E., Hochgerner, H., Petukhov, V., Lidschreiber, K., Kastriti, M. E., Lönnerberg, P., Furlan, A., et al. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0414-6 · Cited by 4,118 · see citing works
Self-citationVisualization and analysis of gene expression in tissue sections by spatial transcriptomics
Ståhl, P. L., Salmén, F., Vickovic, S., Lundmark, A., Navarro, J. F., Magnusson, J., Giacomello, S., Asp, M., Westholm, J. O., Huss, M., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf2403 · Cited by 3,834 · see citing works
Fast gene set enrichment analysisPreprint
Korotkevich, G., Sukhov, V., Budin, N., Shpak, B., Artyomov, M. N., & Sergushichev, A. (2016) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/060012 · Cited by 3,742 · see citing works
Finak, G., McDavid, A., Yajima, M., Deng, J., Gersuk, V., Shalek, A. K., Slichter, C. K., Miller, H. W., McElrath, M. J., Prlic, M., et al. (2015) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0844-5 · Cited by 3,159 · see citing works
Molecular Architecture of the Mouse Nervous System
Zeisel, A., Hochgerner, H., Lönnerberg, P., Johnsson, A., Memic, F., van der Zwan, J., Häring, M., Braun, E., Borm, L. E., La Manno, G., et al. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.021 · Cited by 2,995 · see citing works
Self-citationSingle-cell transcriptomic analysis of Alzheimer’s disease
Mathys, H., Davila-Velderrain, J., Peng, Z., Gao, F., Mohammadi, S., Young, J. Z., Menon, M., He, L., Abdurrob, F., Jiang, X., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1195-2 · Cited by 2,568 · see citing works
(2012) · doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.08.002 · Cited by 2,567 · see citing works
RNA sequencing: the teenage years
Stark, R., Grzelak, M., & Hadfield, J. (2019) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-019-0150-2 · Cited by 1,906 · see citing works
Astrocyte scar formation aids central nervous system axon regeneration
Anderson, M. A., Burda, J. E., Ren, Y., Ao, Y., O’Shea, T. M., Kawaguchi, R., Coppola, G., Khakh, B. S., Deming, T. J., & Sofroniew, M. V. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature17623 · Cited by 1,851 · see citing works
Self-citationA single-cell survey of the small intestinal epithelium
Haber, A. L., Biton, M., Rogel, N., Herbst, R. H., Shekhar, K., Smillie, C., Burgin, G., Delorey, T. M., Howitt, M. R., Katz, Y., et al. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature24489 · Cited by 1,750 · see citing works
Differential expression in RNA-seq: A matter of depth
Tarazona, S., García-Alcalde, F., Dopazo, J., Ferrer, A., & Conesa, A. (2011) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.124321.111 · Cited by 1,632 · see citing works
A single-cell atlas of the peripheral immune response in patients with severe COVID-19
Wilk, A. J., Rustagi, A., Zhao, N. Q., Roque, J., Martínez-Colón, G. J., McKechnie, J. L., Ivison, G. T., Ranganath, T., Vergara, R., Hollis, T., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0944-y · Cited by 1,493 · see citing works
Intra- and Inter-cellular Rewiring of the Human Colon during Ulcerative Colitis
Smillie, C. S., Biton, M., Ordovás-Montañés, J., Sullivan, K. M., Burgin, G., Graham, D. B., Herbst, R. H., Rogel, N., Slyper, M., Waldman, J., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.06.029 · Cited by 1,386 · see citing works
Lipid-associated macrophages control metabolic homeostasis in a Trem2-dependent manner
Jaitin, D. A., Adlung, L., Thaiss, C. A., Weiner, A., Li, B., Descamps, H., Lundgren, P., Bleriot, C., Liu, Z., Deczkowska, A., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.054 · Cited by 1,377 · see citing works
Bayesian approach to single-cell differential expression analysis
Kharchenko, P. V., Silberstein, L., & Scadden, D. T. (2014) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2967 · Cited by 1,348 · see citing works
Multiplexed droplet single-cell RNA-sequencing using natural genetic variation
Kang, H. M., Subramaniam, M., Targ, S., Nguyen, M., Maliskova, L., McCarthy, E., Wan, E., Wong, S., Byrnes, L., Lanata, C. M., et al. (2018) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.4042 · Cited by 1,339 · see citing works
Reyfman, P. A., Walter, J. M., Joshi, N., Anekalla, K. R., McQuattie-Pimentel, A. C., Chiu, S., Fernandez, R., Akbarpour, M., Chen, C.-I., Ren, Z., et al. (2019) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201712-2410oc · Cited by 1,203 · see citing works
Grubman, A., Chew, G., Ouyang, J. F., Sun, G., Choo, X. Y., McLean, C., Simmons, R. K., Buckberry, S., Vargas-Landin, D. B., Poppe, D., et al. (2019) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0539-4 · Cited by 956 · see citing works
Splatter: simulation of single-cell RNA sequencing data
Zappia, L., Phipson, B., & Oshlack, A. (2017) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1305-0 · Cited by 905 · see citing works
Wirka, R. C., Wagh, D. A., Paik, D. T., Pjanic, M., Nguyen, T., Miller, C. L., Kundu, R., Nagao, M., Coller, J., Koyano, T. K., et al. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0512-5 · Cited by 880 · see citing works
Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms
Irizarry, R. A., Warren, D., Spencer, F., Kim, I. F., Biswal, S., Frank, B. C., Gabrielson, E., Garcia, J. G. N., Geoghegan, J., Germino, G., et al. (2005) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth756 · Cited by 862 · see citing works
Altered human oligodendrocyte heterogeneity in multiple sclerosis
Jäkel, S., Agirre, E., Mendanha Falcão, A., van Bruggen, D., Lee, K. W., Knuesel, I., Malhotra, D., ffrench-Constant, C., Williams, A., & Castelo-Branco, G. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0903-2 · Cited by 854 · see citing works
Single-cell mapping of gene expression landscapes and lineage in the zebrafish embryo
Wagner, D. E., Weinreb, C., Collins, Z. M., Briggs, J. A., Megason, S. G., & Klein, A. M. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aar4362 · Cited by 849 · see citing works
Advanced CLARITY for rapid and high-resolution imaging of intact tissues
Tomer, R., Ye, L., Hsueh, B., & Deisseroth, K. (2014) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2014.123 · Cited by 842 · see citing works
A Single-Cell Transcriptome Atlas of the Aging Drosophila Brain
Davie, K., Janssens, J., Koldere, D., De Waegeneer, M., Pech, U., Kreft, Ł., Aibar, S., Makhzami, S., Christiaens, V., Bravo González-Blas, C., et al. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.057 · Cited by 840 · 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
Restoring Voluntary Control of Locomotion after Paralyzing Spinal Cord Injury
van den Brand, R., Heutschi, J., Barraud, Q., DiGiovanna, J., Bartholdi, K., Huerlimann, M., Friedli, L., Vollenweider, I., Moraud, E. M., Duis, S., et al. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1217416 · Cited by 767 · see citing works
Self-citationSingle-cell transcriptomic profiling of the aging mouse brain
Ximerakis, M., Lipnick, S. L., Innes, B. T., Simmons, S. K., Adiconis, X., Dionne, D., Mayweather, B. A., Nguyen, L., Niziolek, Z., Ozek, C., et al. (2019) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0491-3 · Cited by 736 · see citing works
Comprehensive evaluation of differential gene expression analysis methods for RNA-seq data
Rapaport, F., Khanin, R., Liang, Y., Pirun, M., Krek, A., Zumbo, P., Mason, C. E., Socci, N. D., & Betel, D. (2013) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-9-r95 · Cited by 733 · see citing works
Transformation of nonfunctional spinal circuits into functional states after the loss of brain input
Courtine, G., Gerasimenko, Y., van den Brand, R., Yew, A., Musienko, P., Zhong, H., Song, B., Ao, Y., Ichiyama, R. M., Lavrov, I., et al. (2009) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2401 · Cited by 706 · see citing works
Self-citationGrimm, D., Lee, J. S., Wang, L., Desai, T., Akache, B., Storm, T. A., & Kay, M. A. (2008) · Journal of Virology · doi:10.1128/jvi.00254-08 · Cited by 696 · see citing works
Denisenko, E., Guo, B. B., Jones, M., Hou, R., de Kock, L., Lassmann, T., Poppe, D., Clément, O., Simmons, R. K., Lister, R., et al. (2020) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-020-02048-6 · Cited by 686 · see citing works
Synthetic spike-in standards for RNA-seq experiments
Jiang, L., Schlesinger, F., Davis, C. A., Zhang, Y., Li, R., Salit, M., Gingeras, T. R., & Oliver, B. (2011) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.121095.111 · Cited by 653 · see citing works
Neuronal vulnerability and multilineage diversity in multiple sclerosis
Schirmer, L., Velmeshev, D., Holmqvist, S., Kaufmann, M., Werneburg, S., Jung, D., Vistnes, S., Stockley, J. H., Young, A., Steindel, M., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1404-z · Cited by 638 · see citing works
An atlas of the aging lung mapped by single cell transcriptomics and deep tissue proteomics
Angelidis, I., Simon, L. M., Fernandez, I. E., Strunz, M., Mayr, C. H., Greiffo, F. R., Tsitsiridis, G., Ansari, M., Graf, E., Strom, T.-M., et al. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08831-9 · Cited by 637 · see citing works
Tran, N. M., Shekhar, K., Whitney, I. E., Jacobi, A., Benhar, I., Hong, G., Yan, W., Adiconis, X., Arnold, M. E., Lee, J. M., et al. (2019) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.11.006 · Cited by 627 · see citing works
Single-Cell Transcriptomic Atlas of Primate Ovarian Aging
Wang, S., Zheng, Y., Li, J., Yu, Y., Zhang, W., Song, M., Liu, Z., Min, Z., Hu, H., Jing, Y., et al. (2020) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.009 · Cited by 592 · see citing works
Experimental Modeling of Spinal Cord Injury: Characterization of a Force-Defined Injury Device
Scheff, S. W., Rabchevsky, A. G., Fugaccia, I., Main, J. A., & Lumpp, J. E. (2003) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/08977150360547099 · Cited by 564 · see citing works
Nagy, C., Maitra, M., Tanti, A., Suderman, M., Théroux, J.-F., Davoli, M. A., Perlman, K., Yerko, V., Wang, Y. C., Tripathy, S. J., et al. (2020) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-020-0621-y · Cited by 532 · see citing works
Required growth facilitators propel axon regeneration across complete spinal cord injury
Anderson, M. A., O’Shea, T. M., Burda, J. E., Ao, Y., Barlatey, S. L., Bernstein, A. M., Kim, J. H., James, N. D., Rogers, A. D., Kato, B., et al. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0467-6 · Cited by 528 · see citing works
Self-citationCrowell, H. L., Soneson, C., Germain, P.-L., Calini, D., Collin, L., Raposo, C., Malhotra, D., & Robinson, M. D. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19894-4 · Cited by 515 · see citing works
Single-cell analysis of experience-dependent transcriptomic states in the mouse visual cortex
Hrvatin, S., Hochbaum, D. R., Nagy, M. A., Cicconet, M., Robertson, K., Cheadle, L., Zilionis, R., Ratner, A., Borges-Monroy, R., Klein, A. M., et al. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-017-0029-5 · Cited by 497 · see citing works
An immune-cell signature of bacterial sepsis
Reyes, M., Filbin, M. R., Bhattacharyya, R. P., Billman, K., Eisenhaure, T., Hung, D. T., Levy, B. D., Baron, R. M., Blainey, P. C., Goldberg, M. B., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0752-4 · Cited by 493 · see citing works
Madissoon, E., Wilbrey-Clark, A., Miragaia, R. J., Saeb‐Parsy, K., Mahbubani, K. T. A., Georgakopoulos, N., Harding, P., Polański, K., Huang, N., Nowicki-Osuch, K., et al. (2019) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1906-x · Cited by 492 · see citing works
Integrated single cell analysis of blood and cerebrospinal fluid leukocytes in multiple sclerosis
Schafflick, D., Xu, C. A., Hartlehnert, M., Cole, M. B., Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, A., Lautwein, T., Wolbert, J., Heming, M., Meuth, S. G., Kuhlmann, T., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-14118-w · Cited by 441 · see citing works
Detecting Activated Cell Populations Using Single-Cell RNA-Seq
Wu, Y. E., Pan, L., Zuo, Y., Li, X., & Hong, W. (2017) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.09.026 · Cited by 438 · see citing works
Spatiotemporal dynamics of molecular pathology in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Maniatis, S., Äijö, T., Vickovic, S., Braine, C., Kang, K., Mollbrink, A., Fagegaltier, D., Andrusivová, Ž., Saarenpää, S., Saiz-Castro, G., et al. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aav9776 · Cited by 429 · see citing works
Lun, A. T. L., Chen, Y., & Smyth, G. K. (2016) · Methods in molecular biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3578-9_19 · Cited by 413 · see citing works
the Accelerating Medicines Partnership Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (AMP RA/SLE) Consortium, Der, E., Suryawanshi, H., Morozov, P., Kustagi, M., Goilav, B., Ranabothu, S., Izmirly, P., Clancy, R., Belmont, H. M., et al. (2019) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-019-0386-1 · Cited by 403 · see citing works
Data exploration, quality control and testing in single-cell qPCR-based gene expression experiments
McDavid, A., Finak, G., Chattopadyay, P. K., Dominguez, M., Lamoreaux, L., Ma, S. S., Roederer, M., & Gottardo, R. (2013) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts714 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Ketone Body Signaling Mediates Intestinal Stem Cell Homeostasis and Adaptation to Diet
Cheng, C., Biton, M., Haber, A. L., Gündüz, N., Eng, G. M., Gaynor, L. T., Tripathi, S. M., Calibasi‐Kocal, G., Rickelt, S., Butty, V. L., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.07.048 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Sathyamurthy, A., Johnson, K. R., Matson, K. J. E., Dobrott, C. I., Li, L., Ryba, A. R., Bergman, T. B., Kelly, M. C., Kelley, M. W., & Levine, A. J. (2018) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.003 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
Self-citationWenger, N., Moraud, E. M., Gandar, J., Musienko, P., Capogrosso, M., Baud, L., Le Goff, C. G., Barraud, Q., Pavlova, N., Dominici, N., et al. (2016) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.4025 · Cited by 369 · see citing works
Self-citationA practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies
Zimmerman, K. D., Espeland, M. A., & Langefeld, C. D. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21038-1 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Batch effects and the effective design of single-cell gene expression studies
Tung, P.-Y., Blischak, J. D., Hsiao, C. J., Knowles, D. A., Burnett, J. E., Pritchard, J. K., & Gilad, Y. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep39921 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
Single-cell transcriptomics reveals expansion of cytotoxic CD4 T cells in supercentenarians
Hashimoto, K., Kouno, T., Ikawa, T., Hayatsu, N., Miyajima, Y., Yabukami, H., Terooatea, T., Sasaki, T., Suzuki, T., Valentine, M., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1907883116 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Untangling the brain’s neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative transcriptional responses
Srinivasan, K., Friedman, B. A., Larson, J. L., Lauffer, B. E., Goldstein, L. D., Appling, L. L., Borneo, J., Poon, C., Ho, T., Cai, F., et al. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms11295 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
Pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies; a practical solution
Zimmerman, K. D., Espeland, M. A., & Langefeld, C. D. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.01.15.906248 · Cited by 332 · see citing works
The mesoSPIM initiative: open-source light-sheet microscopes for imaging cleared tissue
Voigt, F. F., Kirschenbaum, D. S., Platonova, E., Pagès, S., Campbell, R. A. A., Kästli, R., Schaettin, M., Egolf, L., van der Bourg, A., Bethge, P., et al. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0554-0 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Asboth, L., Friedli, L., Beauparlant, J., Martinez-Gonzalez, C., Anil, S., Rey, E., Baud, L., Pidpruzhnykova, G., Anderson, M. A., Shkorbatova, P., et al. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0093-5 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
Self-citationTakeoka, A., Vollenweider, I., Courtine, G., & Arber, S. (2014) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.019 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Self-citationHuang, B., Chen, Z., Geng, L., Wang, J., Liang, H., Cao, Y., Chen, H., Huang, W., Su, M., Wang, H., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.027 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Sensory lesioning induces microglial synapse elimination via ADAM10 and fractalkine signaling
Gunner, G., Cheadle, L., Johnson, K. M., Ayata, P., Badimon, A., Mondo, E., Nagy, M. A., Liu, L., Bemiller, S. M., Kim, K.-W., et al. (2019) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0419-y · Cited by 311 · see citing works
Cano-Gamez, K., Soskic, B., Roumeliotis, T. I., So, E., Smyth, D. J., Baldrighi, M., Willé, D., Nakic, N., Esparza-Gordillo, J., Larminie, C. G. C., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15543-y · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Cell type prioritization in single-cell data
Skinnider, M. A., Squair, J. W., Kathe, C., Anderson, M. A., Gautier, M., Matson, K. J. E., Milano, M., Hutson, T. H., Barraud, Q., Phillips, A. A., et al. (2021) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0605-1 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Self-citationMultimodal analysis of cell types in a hypothalamic node controlling social behavior
Kim, D.-W., Yao, Z., Graybuck, L. T., Kim, T. K., Nguyen, T. N., Smith, K. A., Fong, O., Yi, L., Koulena, N., Pierson, N., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.09.020 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Goldfarbmuren, K. C., Jackson, N. D., Sajuthi, S. P., Dyjack, N. T., Li, K. S., Rios, C. L., Plender, E. G., Montgomery, M. T., Everman, J. L., Bratcher, P. E., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16239-z · Cited by 226 · see citing works
A curated database reveals trends in single-cell transcriptomics
Svensson, V., da Veiga Beltrame, E., & Pachter, L. (2020) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/baaa073 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Gene expression variability across cells and species shapes innate immunity
Hagai, T., Chen, X., Miragaia, R. J., Rostom, R., Gomes, T., Kunowska, N., Henriksson, J., Park, J.-E., Proserpio, V., Donati, G., et al. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0657-2 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Kotliarov, Y., Sparks, R., Martins, A. J., Mulè, M. P., Lu, Y. C., Goswami, M., Kardava, L., Banchereau, R., Pascual, V., Biancotto, A., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0769-8 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Single cell molecular alterations reveal target cells and pathways of concussive brain injury
Arneson, D., Zhang, G., Ying, Z., Zhuang, Y., Byun, H. R., Ahn, I. S., Gomez-Pinilla, F., & Yang, X. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06222-0 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Bhattacherjee, A., Djekidel, M. N., Chen, R., Chen, W., Tuesta, L. M., & Zhang, Y. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12054-3 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Obesity remodels activity and transcriptional state of a lateral hypothalamic brake on feeding
Rossi, M. A., Basiri, M. L., McHenry, J. A., Kosyk, O., Otis, J. M., van den Munkhof, H. E., Bryois, J., Hübel, C., Breen, G. D., Guo, W., et al. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aax1184 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Pericytes impair capillary blood flow and motor function after chronic spinal cord injury
Li, Y., Lucas-Osma, A. M., Black, S., Bandet, M. V., Stephens, M. J., Vavrek, R., Sanelli, L., Fenrich, K. K., Di Narzo, A. F., Dracheva, S., et al. (2017) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.4331 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Hu, P., Fabyanic, E., Kwon, D. Y., Tang, S., Zhou, Z., & Wu, H. (2017) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2017.11.017 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Overcoming confounding plate effects in differential expression analyses of single-cell RNA-seq data
Lun, A. T. L., & Marioni, J. C. (2017) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxw055 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
A discriminative learning approach to differential expression analysis for single-cell RNA-seq
Ntranos, V., Yi, L., Melsted, P., & Pachter, L. S. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0303-9 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Single-cell RNA-seq uncovers a robust transcriptional response to morphine by glia
Avey, D., Sankararaman, S., Yim, A. K. Y., Barve, R., Milbrandt, J., & Mitra, R. D. (2018) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.08.080 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Identification of a regeneration-organizing cell in the <i>Xenopus</i> tail
Aztekin, C., Hiscock, T. W., Marioni, J. C., Gurdon, J. B., Simons, B. D., & Jullien, J. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aav9996 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Beauparlant, J., van den Brand, R., Barraud, Q., Friedli, L., Musienko, P., Dietz, V., & Courtine, G. (2013) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awt204 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Self-citationMaintenance of redox homeostasis by hypoxia-inducible factors
Samanta, D., & Semenza, G. L. (2017) · Redox Biology · doi:10.1016/j.redox.2017.05.022 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Towards sound epistemological foundations of statistical methods for high-dimensional biology
Mehta, T. S., Tanik, M. M., & Allison, D. B. (2004) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1422 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Single cell transcriptome profiling of the human alcohol-dependent brain
Brenner, E., Tiwari, G. R., Kapoor, M., Liu, Y., Brock, A., & Mayfield, R. D. (2020) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddaa038 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
From tissues to cell types and back: single-cell gene expression analysis of tissue architecture
Chen, X., Teichmann, S. A., & Meyer, K. B. (2018) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-080917-013452 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Dominici, N., Keller, U., Vallery, H., Friedli, L., van den Brand, R., Starkey, M. L., Евгеньевич, М. П., Riener, R., & Courtine, G. (2012) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.2845 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Self-citationValid Post-clustering Differential Analysis for Single-Cell RNA-Seq
Zhang, J. M., Kamath, G. M., & Tse, D. N. (2019) · Cell Systems · doi:10.1016/j.cels.2019.07.012 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
ZACHO, A., Nielsen, J., & Cederqvist, C. (1975) · PubMed · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Nault, R., Fader, K. A., Bhattacharya, S., & Zacharewski, T. R. (2020) · Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.07.012 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Zhang, C., Lu, L., Li, Y., Wang, X., Zhou, J., Liu, Y., Fu, P., Gallicchio, M. A., Bach, L. A., & Duan, C. (2012) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.26201 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Prioritization of cell types responsive to biological perturbations in single-cell data with Augur
Squair, J. W., Skinnider, M. A., Gautier, M., Foster, L. J., & Courtine, G. (2021) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-021-00561-x · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationCortical Foxp2 Supports Behavioral Flexibility and Developmental Dopamine D1 Receptor Expression
Co, M., Hickey, S. L., Kulkarni, A., Harper, M. J., & Konopka, G. (2019) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhz209 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Squair, J. W., Tigchelaar, S., Moon, K., Liu, J., Tetzlaff, W., Kwon, B. K., Krassioukov, A. V., West, C. R., Foster, L. J., & Skinnider, M. A. (2018) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.39188 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Self-citationExpanding immunologic sensitization in children.
Hg, R. (1967) · PubMed · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1007/978-1-4939-3578-9$\_$19 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities
Heumos, L., Schaar, A. C., Lance, C., Litinetskaya, A., Drost, F., Zappia, L., Lücken, M. D., Strobl, D. C., Henao, J., Curion, F., et al. (2023) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-023-00586-w · Cited by 1,051 · see citing works
An integrated cell atlas of the lung in health and disease
Sikkema, L., Ramírez-Suástegui, C., Strobl, D. C., Gillett, T. E., Zappia, L., Madissoon, E., Markov, N. S., Zaragosi, L., Ji, Y., Ansari, M., et al. (2023) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02327-2 · Cited by 856 · see citing works
“Modeling these covariates at the cell level (that is, treating single cells as independent samples even when they come from the same sample) has been shown to inflate P values 104,105 .”
BackgroundhdWGCNA identifies co-expression networks in high-dimensional transcriptomics data
Morabito, S., Reese, F., Rahimzadeh, N., Miyoshi, E., & Swarup, V. (2023) · Cell Reports Methods · doi:10.1016/j.crmeth.2023.100498 · Cited by 773 · see citing works
APOE4/4 is linked to damaging lipid droplets in Alzheimer’s disease microglia
Haney, M. S., Pálovics, R., Munson, C. N., Long, C., Johansson, P. K., Yip, O., Dong, W., Rawat, E., West, E., Schlachetzki, J. C. M., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07185-7 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
“We summed the raw counts per patient sample and hence derived ‘pseu-dobulk’ samples 47 from the single-cell counts.”
Maturation and circuit integration of transplanted human cortical organoids
Revah, O., Gore, F., Kelley, K. W., Andersen, J., Sakai, N., Chen, X., Li, M.-Y., Birey, F., Yang, X., Saw, N. L., et al. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05277-w · Cited by 504 · see citing works
Salcher, S., Sturm, G., Horvath, L., Untergasser, G., Kuempers, C., Fotakis, G., Panizzolo, E., Martowicz, A., Trebo, M., Pall, G., et al. (2022) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2022.10.008 · Cited by 479 · see citing works
“Differential gene expression testing We used DESeq2(119) on pseudo-bulk samples for differential expression testing which has been demonstrated to perform well and properly correct for false discoveries.(120) For each cell-type and patient, we summed up transcript counts for each gene.”
Gene regulatory network inference in the era of single-cell multi-omics
Badia-i-Mompel, P., Wessels, L., Müller‐Dott, S., Trimbour, R., Flores, R. O. R., Argelaguet, R., & Sáez-Rodríguez, J. (2023) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-023-00618-5 · Cited by 475 · see citing works
“Strategies that aggregate similar cells into pseudo-bulk profiles or metacells 146,157,158 have been reported to be beneficial 87 .”
BackgroundMarsh, S. E., Walker, A. J., Kamath, T., Dissing-Olesen, L., Hammond, T. R., de Soysa, T. Y., Young, A. M. H., Murphy, S., Abdulraouf, A., Nadaf, N., et al. (2022) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-022-01022-8 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Li, J., Wu, C., Hu, H., Qin, G., Wu, X., Bai, F., Zhang, J., Cai, Y., Huang, Y. J., Wang, C., et al. (2023) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2023.04.011 · Cited by 372 · see citing works
Mapping the developing human immune system across organs
Suo, C., Dann, E., Goh, I., Jardine, L., Kleshchevnikov, V., Park, J.-E., Botting, R. A., Stephenson, E., Engelbert, J., Tuong, Z. K., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abo0510 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
“Briefly, single-cell expression profiles were first aggregated into pseudobulk expression profiles x̂ for each cell type c and sample s [as recommended by (85, 86)].”
MethodThe neurons that restore walking after paralysis
Kathe, C., Skinnider, M. A., Hutson, T. H., Regazzi, N., Gautier, M., Demesmaeker, R., Komi, S., Ceto, S., James, N. D., Cho, N., et al. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05385-7 · Cited by 304 · see citing works
Self-citationDistinct cellular dynamics associated with response to CAR-T therapy for refractory B cell lymphoma
Haradhvala, N. J., Leick, M. B., Maurer, K., Gohil, S. H., Larson, R. C., Yao, N., Gallagher, K., Katsis, K., Frigault, M. J., Southard, J., et al. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01959-0 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Microfluidics-free single-cell genomics with templated emulsification
Clark, I. C., Fontanez, K. M., Meltzer, R. H., Xue, Y., Hayford, C. E., May-Zhang, A. A., D’Amato, C., Osman, A., Zhang, J. Q., Hettige, P., et al. (2023) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01685-z · Cited by 225 · see citing works
“…implications for data quality and biological discovery in single-cell experiments because the detection of true positives and reduction in false positives in differential expression analysis is improved by incorporating replicates and statistical methods that account for biological variability 58 .”
A cellular taxonomy of the adult human spinal cord
Yadav, A., Matson, K. J. E., Li, L., Hua, I., Petrescu, J., Kang, K., Alkaslasi, M. R., Lee, D. I., Hasan, S., Galuta, A., et al. (2023) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2023.01.007 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Self-citationFasolino, M., Schwartz, G. W., Patil, A. R., Mongia, A., Golson, M. L., Wang, Y. J., Morgan, A. R., Liu, C., Schug, J., Liu, J., et al. (2022) · Nature Metabolism · doi:10.1038/s42255-022-00531-x · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Trem2 promotes foamy macrophage lipid uptake and survival in atherosclerosis
Patterson, M. T., Firulyova, M. M., Xu, Y., Hillman, H., Bishop, C., Zhu, A., Hickok, G. H., Schrank, P. R., Ronayne, C. E., Caillot, Z., et al. (2023) · Nature Cardiovascular Research · doi:10.1038/s44161-023-00354-3 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
“Because differential expression tests in scRNA-seq are biased and prone to report many false positives 55 , we decided to use the pseudobulk approach to test differential expression using DESeq2.”
MethodBrassinosteroid gene regulatory networks at cellular resolution in the Arabidopsis root
Nolan, T. M., Vukašinović, N., Hsu, C., Zhang, J., Vanhoutte, I., Shahan, R., Taylor, I. W., Greenstreet, L., Heitz, M., Afanassiev, A., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adf4721 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Fan, Y., Bian, X.-Z., Meng, X., Li, L., Fu, L.-Y., Zhang, Y.-N., Wang, L., Zhang, Y., Gao, D.-L., Guo, X., et al. (2024) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard-2023-224420 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Accurate and fast cell marker gene identification with COSG
Dai, M., Pei, X., & Wang, X. (2022) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbab579 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Squair, J. W., Milano, M., de Coucy, A., Gautier, M., Skinnider, M. A., James, N. D., Cho, N., Lasne, A., Kathe, C., Hutson, T. H., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adi6412 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Self-citationUpper cortical layer–driven network impairment in schizophrenia
Batiuk, M. Y., Tyler, T., Dragičević, K., Mei, S., Rydbirk, R., Petukhov, V., Deviatiiarov, R. M., Sedmak, D., Frank, E., Feher, V., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn8367 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Nguyen, E. M., Taniguchi, H., Chan, J. M., Zhan, Y. A., Chen, X., Qiu, J. J., de Stanchina, E., Allaj, V., Shah, N., Uddin, F. Z., et al. (2022) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2022.05.014 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Browaeys, R., Gilis, J., Sang-aram, C., Bleser, P. D., Hoste, L., Tavernier, S. J., Lambrechts, D., Seurinck, R., & Saeys, Y. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.06.13.544751 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Caglayan, E., Liu, Y., & Konopka, G. (2022) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2022.09.010 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Jakobsen, N. A., Turkalj, S., Zeng, A. G. X., Stoilova, B., Metzner, M., Rahmig, S., Nagree, M. S., Shah, S., Moore, R., Usukhbayar, B., et al. (2024) · Cell Stem Cell · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2024.05.010 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Murphy, A. E., & Skene, N. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35519-4 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
“Pseudobulk approaches were also found to be top performing in a recent review by Squair et al., 6 .”
A comparison of marker gene selection methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data
Pullin, J. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.05.09.490241 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
“In the context of scRNA-seq data, the 46 term DE gene does not have a unique meaning; it can refer to genes found in a comparison between cells 47 in different clusters in the same sample [12,13] or in the same cluster between different samples [4,14,15], or to 48 a comparison between arbitrary groups of cells [16].”
MethodNatural and targeted circuit reorganization after spinal cord injury
Anderson, M. A., Squair, J. W., Gautier, M., Hutson, T. H., Kathe, C., Barraud, Q., Bloch, J., & Courtine, G. (2022) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-022-01196-1 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Self-citationConserved and divergent gene regulatory programs of the mammalian neocortex
Zemke, N. R., Armand, E. J., Wang, W., Lee, S. Y., Zhou, J., Li, Y. E., Liu, H., Tian, W., Nery, J. R., Castanon, R., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06819-6 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
“We performed analysis using previous recommendations 87 .”
MethodSingle-cell and spatial atlases of spinal cord injury in the Tabulae Paralytica
Skinnider, M. A., Gautier, M., Teo, A. Y. Y., Kathe, C., Hutson, T. H., Laskaratos, A., de Coucy, A., Regazzi, N., Aureli, V., James, N. D., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07504-y · Cited by 131 · see citing works
“We then used the clustree package 15 to link clusters across adjacent resolutions into a hierarchical clustering tree, as previously described 8,30,48 .”
InfluentialSelf-citationPoscablo, D. M., Worthington, A. K., Smith‐Berdan, S., Rommel, M. G. E., Manso, B. A., Adili, R., Mok, L., Reggiardo, R. E., Cool, T., Mogharrab, R., et al. (2024) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.04.018 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Systematic benchmarking of imaging spatial transcriptomics platforms in FFPE tissues
Wang, H., Huang, R., Nelson, J., Gao, C., Tran, M., Yeaton, A. H., Krishna, S., Felt, K. D., Pfaff, K. L., Bowman, T., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-64990-y · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Luo, Y., Xia, Y., Liu, D., Li, X., Li, H., Liu, J., Zhou, D., Dong, Y. J., Li, X., Qian, Y., et al. (2024) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.06.013 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
scPower accelerates and optimizes the design of multi-sample single cell transcriptomic studies
Schmid, K. T., Höllbacher, B., Cruceanu, C., Böttcher, A., Lickert, H., Binder, E. B., Theis, F. J., & Heinig, M. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26779-7 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
A brain cell atlas integrating single-cell transcriptomes across human brain regions
Chen, X., Huang, Y., Huang, L., Huang, Z., Hao, Z.-Z., Xu, L., Xu, N., Li, Z., Mou, Y., Ye, M., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03150-z · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Zhang, J. M., Ubas, A. A., de Borja, R., Svensson, V., Thomas, N., Thakar, N., Lai, I. K., Winters, A. F., Khan, U., Jones, M. G., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.02.20.639398 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
“UMI counts for single cells in plate 6 (7,285,856 cells) and plate 14 (6,201,077 cells) were aggregated into 'pseudobulk' UMI counts for each (cell line, treatment) pair (Squair et al. 2021), yielding 4,800 pseudobulk profiles for plate 6 and 4,796 for plate 14.”
Junttila, S., Smolander, J., & Elo, L. L. (2022) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbac286 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
“[10] compared naïve methods, pseudobulk methods and one mixed-model method (muscat_MM).”
MethodProfound phenotypic and epigenetic heterogeneity of the HIV-1-infected CD4+ T cell reservoir
Wu, V. H., Nordin, J. M. L., Nguyen, S., Joy, J. P., Mampe, F., Estrada, P. M. D. R., Torres-Ruiz, F., González-Navarro, M., Luna-Villalobos, Y. A., Ávila‐Ríos, S., et al. (2022) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-022-01371-3 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
“Manual annotations were then used to subset cells for downstream ADT differential expression analysis between HIV+ and HIV- cells using Seurat FindMarkers (using “DESeq2” for the findMarkerMethod parameter) to limit false discoveries (Squair et al., 2021) and the subset of features that were significantly different fr…”
MethodAn integrated cell atlas of the human lung in health and diseasePreprint
Sikkema, L., Strobl, D. C., Zappia, L., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.03.10.483747 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Modelling viral encephalitis caused by herpes simplex virus 1 infection in cerebral organoids
Rybak‐Wolf, A., Wyler, E., Pentimalli, T. M., Legnini, I., Oliveras, A., Glažar, P., Loewa, A., Kim, S. J., Kaufer, B. B., Woehler, A., et al. (2023) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41564-023-01405-y · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Single-cell transcriptomics reveal how root tissues adapt to soil stress
Zhu, M., Hsu, C., Ogorek, L. L. P., Taylor, I. W., Cavera, S. L., de Oliveira, D. M., Verma, L., Mehra, P., Mijar, M., Sadanandom, A., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08941-z · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Diversity of Reactive Astrogliosis in CNS Pathology: Heterogeneity or Plasticity?
Moulson, A. J., Squair, J. W., Franklin, R. J. M., Tetzlaff, W., & Assinck, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncel.2021.703810 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
“, 2021b), and to avoid false positives that have the potential to drive research in unfruitful directions (Squair et al., 2021).”
BackgroundSelf-citationJackson, Z., Hong, C., Schauner, R., Dropulić, B., Caimi, P. F., Lima, M. J. G. D., Giraudo, M. F., Gupta, K., Reese, J., Hwang, T. H., et al. (2022) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-21-1586 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Du, H., Li, S., Lu, J., Tang, L.-Z., Jiang, X., He, X., Liang, J., Liao, X., Cui, T., Huang, Y., et al. (2023) · Burns & Trauma · doi:10.1093/burnst/tkad020 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
“HDMECs were isolated from the total cells and subjected to differential gene expression analysis using the pseudobulk method [28].”
MethodsnRNA-seq stratifies multiple sclerosis patients into distinct white matter glial responses
Macnair, W., Calini, D., Agirre, E., Bryois, J., Jäkel, S., Smith, R. S., Kukanja, P., Stokar-Regenscheit, N., Ott, V., Foo, L. C., et al. (2025) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2024.11.016 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Delineating mouse β-cell identity during lifetime and in diabetes with a single cell atlas
Hrovatin, K., Bastidas-Ponce, A., Bakhti, M., Zappia, L., Büttner, M., Salinno, C., Sterr, M., Böttcher, A., Migliorini, A., Lickert, H., et al. (2023) · Nature Metabolism · doi:10.1038/s42255-023-00876-x · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Transcriptional linkage analysis with in vivo AAV-Perturb-seq
Santinha, A. J., Klingler, E., Kuhn, M., Farouni, R., Lagler, S., Kalamakis, G., Lischetti, U., Jabaudon, D., & Platt, R. J. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06570-y · Cited by 83 · see citing works
“We used pseudobulk rather than single-cell-specific methods given that it is less biased towards highly expressed genes and less prone to false-positives 20 (Extended Data Fig.”
MethodSeyfferth, C., Eekhout, T., Shi, D., Neumann, M., Berg, L. S., Ke, Y., Shahan, R., Cox, K. L., Gómez-Cano, F., Nelissen, H., et al. (2024) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1093/plcell/koae003 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
“This higher coverage in turn helps to outweigh the bias of differential expression analysis tools toward highly expressed genes ( Squair et al. 2021) and data set-specific noise (Fischer and Gillis 2021).”
BackgroundBenchmarking integration of single-cell differential expression
Hai, N. C. T., Baik, B., Yoon, S., Park, T., & Nam, D. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37126-3 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“We also tested pseudobulk methods which exhibited good false discovery controls and overall discriminatory abilities in a recent study 26 .”
MethodInfluentialTosoni, G., Ayyildiz, D., Bryois, J., Macnair, W., Fitzsimons, C. P., Lucassen, P. J., & Salta, E. (2023) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2023.03.010 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
“Overall, the discrepancies across datasets (Figure S4) may indicate that distinct studies, using different sample stratification, sampling and lysis protocols, and computational pipelines, either identify diverse subpopulations and cell states involved in the neurogenic process or, alternatively, detect the same popul…”
ResultCD200+ fibroblasts form a pro-resolving mesenchymal network in arthritis
Rauber, S., Mohammadian, H., Schmidkonz, C., Atzinger, A., Soare, A., Treutlein, C., Kemble, S., Mahony, C. B., Geisthoff, M., Angeli, M. R., et al. (2024) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-024-01774-4 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“To avoid analytical bias due to unrelated exclusion of certain fibroblast subtypes 21 , we integrated 33 scRNA-seq datasets (newly generated and existing public datasets; Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Fig 1a–e) from different arthritis models and their controls, resulting in a total of…”
Generating human neural diversity with a multiplexed morphogen screen in organoids
Amin, N. D., Kelley, K. W., Kaganovsky, K., Onesto, M. M., Hao, J., Miura, Y., McQueen, J. P., Reis, N., Narazaki, G., Li, T., et al. (2024) · Cell stem cell · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2024.10.016 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Pertpy: an end-to-end framework for perturbation analysis
Heumos, L., Ji, Y., May, L. T., Green, T. D., Peidli, S., Zhang, X., Wu, X., Ostner, J., Schumacher, A., Hrovatin, K., et al. (2025) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-025-02909-7 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Metacells untangle large and complex single-cell transcriptome networks
Bilous, M., Tran, L., Cianciaruso, C., Gabriel, A. A., Michel, H., Carmona, S. J., Pittet, M. J., & Gfeller, D. (2022) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-022-04861-1 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
“To this end, we capitalized on a dataset ( Mouse_DE ) generated to benchmark DE between conditions (treated vs untreated) in scRNA-seq data compared to bulk RNA-seq [35].”
MethodLee, C. Y. C., Kennedy, B. C., Richoz, N., Dean, I., Tuong, Z. K., Gaspal, F., Li, Z., Willis, C., Hasegawa, T., Whiteside, S. K., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-44787-1 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Hautz, T., Salcher, S., Fodor, M., Sturm, G., Ebner, S., Mair, A., Trebo, M., Untergasser, G., Sopper, S., Cardini, B., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37674-8 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
“We used DESeq2 93 on pseudo-bulk samples for differential expression testing which has been demonstrated to perform well and properly correct for false discoveries 94 .”
Decoding gene regulation in the mouse embryo using single-cell multi-omicsPreprint
Argelaguet, R., Lohoff, T., Li, J., Nakhuda, A., Drage, D., Krueger, F., Velten, L., Clark, S. J., & Reik, W. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.06.15.496239 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“11.0)(Thorvaldsdottir et al., 2013) Differential RNA expression and chromatin accessibility Following the guidelines from previous studies (Squair et al., 2021), we performed differential analysis using pseudo-bulk replicates for each cell type (and genotype, in the Brachyury KO study).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRodríguez-Quiroz, R., & Valdebenito‐Maturana, B. (2022) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-022-04020-5 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
“To this end, we adopted a pseudobulk approach in which expression of genes and TEs per each cell cluster was aggregated, and then, edgeR was used to statistically test for differences (method reviewed by Squair et al. 45 ).”
MethodTranscriptome-wide analysis of differential expression in perturbation atlases
Nadig, A., Replogle, J. M., Pogson, A. N., Murthy, M., McCarroll, S. A., Weissman, J. S., Robinson, E. B., & O’Connor, L. J. (2025) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-025-02169-3 · Cited by 70 · 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 .”
Asian diversity in human immune cells
Kock, K. H., Tan, L. M., Han, K. Y., Ando, Y., Jevapatarakul, D., Chatterjee, A., Lin, Q. X. X., Buyamin, E. V., Sonthalia, R., Rajagopalan, D., et al. (2025) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.02.017 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Bailey, J. I., Puritz, C. H., Senkow, K. J., Markov, N. S., Diaz, E., Jonasson, E., Yu, Z., Swaminathan, S., Lu, Z., Fenske, S. W., et al. (2024) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-024-01975-x · Cited by 70 · see citing works
“To take advantage of the multiple participants in each condition and avoid P -value inflation inherent to approaches where each cell is treated as an independent observation, we summed RNA transcript counts for each participant on a per-cell-type level (pseudobulk approach) 58 .”
MethodTzec-Interián, J. A., González‐Padilla, D., & Góngora‐Castillo, E. (2025) · Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1002/qub2.78 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Stepwise-edited, human melanoma models reveal mutations’ effect on tumor and microenvironment
Hodis, E., Triglia, E. T., Kwon, J., Biancalani, T., Zakka, L. R., Parkar, S., Hütter, J.-C., Buffoni, L., Delorey, T. M., Phillips, D., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abi8175 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
A genetic disorder reveals a hematopoietic stem cell regulatory network co-opted in leukemia
Voit, R. A., Tao, L., Yu, F., Cato, L. D., Cohen, B., Fleming, T. J., Antoszewski, M., Liao, X., Fiorini, C., Nandakumar, S. K., et al. (2022) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-022-01370-4 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Pathophysiological insights into HFpEF from studies of human cardiac tissue
Fayyaz, A. U., Eltony, M., Prokop, L. J., Koepp, K. E., Borlaug, B. A., Dasari, S., Bois, M. C., Margulies, K. B., Maleszewski, J. J., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · Nature Reviews Cardiology · doi:10.1038/s41569-024-01067-1 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
“The analytical techniques for such multiomics approaches are complex, omics method-dependent and beyond the scope of this Review, but require thorough consideration of sample size and care to differentiate between normal biological variability and pathophysiological changes 103–106 .”
scRNA‐seq data analysis method to improve analysis performance
Lu, J., Sheng, Y., Qian, W., Pan, M., Zhao, X., & Ge, Q. (2023) · IET Nanobiotechnology · doi:10.1049/nbt2.12115 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
“, for differential expression analysis [78].”
Vanrobaeys, Y. S., Peterson, Z. J., Walsh, E. N., Chatterjee, S., Lin, L., Lyons, L. C., Nickl‐Jockschat, T., & Abel, T. G. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-42751-z · Cited by 67 · see citing works
“Rank-sum tests have been the most widely used approach in the fi eld of single-cell transcriptomics 70 because it is assumed that every cell (or spot for spatial transcriptomics) is an identical replicate that de fi nes the sample size of the statistics and this approach generates fewer false…”
Gustafsson, J., Anton, M., Roshanzamir, F., Jörnsten, R. J., Kerkhoven, E. J., Robinson, J. L., & Nielsen, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2217868120 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
“For example, differential expression analysis with single-cell data is known to produce false positives if the variation is measured across cells when not accounting for sample origin (22).”
BackgroundVoigt, A. P., Mullin, N. K., Mulfaul, K., Lozano, L. P., Wiley, L. A., Flamme‐Wiese, M. J., Boese, E. A., Han, I. C., Scheetz, T. E., Stone, E. M., et al. (2022) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddac043 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“In a recent experiment, scRNA-seq was used to compare gene expression between severe spinal cord contusion (n = 3) and control (n = 3) mice from the same genetic background (57).”
BackgroundMethodWang, N., Zhang, S., Langfelder, P., Ramanathan, L., Gao, F., Plascencia, M., Vaca, R., Gu, X., Deng, L., Dionisio, L. E., et al. (2025) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.01.031 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“…genotypes (Figure S2D), and Q140/Msh3-hom significantly move the dysregulated transcriptomes in MSNs toward those of WT. Pseudobulk DEG analyses 30,31 (Figure 2D; Figure S2E; Table S3; STAR Methods) revealed 3,145 and 2,641 DEGs, respectively (FDR < 0.1; Figure 2D) in D1-and D2-MSN clusters…”
InfluentialTaniguchi, H., Chakraborty, S., Takahashi, N., Banerjee, A., Caeser, R., Zhan, Y. A., Tischfield, S. E., Chow, A. T., Nguyen, E. M., Quintanal-Villalonga, À., et al. (2024) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.ado4618 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Single nuclei transcriptomics in human and non-human primate striatum in opioid use disorder
Phan, B. N., Ray, M. H., Xue, X., Fu, C., Fenster, R. J., Kohut, S. J., Bergman, J., Haber, S. N., McCullough, K. M., Fish, M. K., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45165-7 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Neuronal identity defines α-synuclein and tau toxicity
Praschberger, R., Kuenen, S., Schoovaerts, N., Kaempf, N., Singh, J., Janssens, J., Swerts, J., Nachman, E., Calatayud, C., Aerts, S., et al. (2023) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2023.02.033 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
ASGARD is a single-cell guided pipeline to aid repurposing of drugs
He, B., Xiao, Y., Liang, H., Huang, Q., Du, Y., Li, Y., Garmire, D., Sun, D., & Garmire, L. X. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36637-3 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Identification of visual cortex cell types and species differences using single-cell RNA sequencing
Wei, J.-R., Hao, Z.-Z., Xu, C., Huang, M., Tang, L., Xu, N., Liu, R., Shen, Y., Teichmann, S. A., Miao, Z., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34590-1 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Chang, H.-W., Lee, E. M., Wang, Y., Zhou, C., Pruss, K. M., Henrissat, S., Chen, R. Y., Kao, C.-Y., Hibberd, M. C., Lynn, H. M., et al. (2024) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41564-024-01628-7 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
“Cross-condition differential gene expression analysis was performed based on a ‘pseudobulk’ strategy: for each cell cluster, gene counts were aggregated to obtain sample-level counts; each pseudo-bulked sample served as an input for edgeR-based differential gene expression analysis 65,66 .”
Phillips, R. A., Tuscher, J. J., Fitzgerald, N. D., Wan, E., Zipperly, M. E., Duke, C. G., Ianov, L., & Day, J. J. (2023) · Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.mcn.2023.103849 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Valkiers, S., de Vrij, N., Gielis, S., Verbandt, S., Ogunjimi, B., Laukens, K., & Meysman, P. (2022) · ImmunoInformatics · doi:10.1016/j.immuno.2022.100009 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Jiang, L., Dalgarno, C., Papalexi, E., Mascio, I., Wessels, H., Yun, H., Iremadze, N., Lithwick‐Yanai, G., Lipson, D., & Satija, R. (2025) · Nature Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41556-025-01622-z · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Chou, E. L., Chaffin, M. D., Simonson, B., Pirruccello, J. P., Akkad, A.-D., Nekoui, M., Cardenas, C. L. L., Bedi, K. C., Nash, C. A., Juric, D., et al. (2022) · Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular Biology · doi:10.1161/atvbaha.122.317953 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Defining and benchmarking open problems in single-cell analysis
Luecken, M. D., Gigante, S., Burkhardt, D. B., Cannoodt, R., Strobl, D. C., Markov, N. S., Zappia, L., Palla, G., Lewis, W., Dimitrov, D., et al. (2025) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-025-02694-w · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citationAndreadou, M., Ingelfinger, F., Feo, D. D., Cramer, T. L. M., Tuzlak, S., Friebel, E., Schreiner, B., Eede, P., Schneeberger, S., Geesdorf, M., et al. (2023) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-023-01435-z · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Boyeau, P., Regier, J., Gayoso, A., Jordan, M. I., Lopez, R., & Yosef, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2209124120 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Interneuron diversity in the human dorsal striatum
Garma, L. D., Harder, L., Barba-Reyes, J. M., Salas, S. M., Díez-Salguero, M., Nilsson, M. F., Serrano‐Pozo, A., Hyman, B. T., & Muñoz‐Manchado, A. B. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50414-w · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“The Libra python library 85 was used to perform the data aggregation and the differential expression analysis, whichwasdone using the edgeR-LRT method 86 .”
Liu, X., Yuan, M., Xiang, Q., Li, Z., Xu, F., Chen, W., Chen, J., Huang, J., Yu, N., Zhou, Z., et al. (2022) · Cell Discovery · doi:10.1038/s41421-022-00402-5 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Guess, T. E., Potts, C. R., Bhat, P., Cartailler, J. A., Brooks, A., Holt, C., Yenamandra, A., Wheeler, F. C., Savona, M. R., Cartailler, J.-P., et al. (2022) · Blood Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2643-3230.bcd-21-0128 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Hoffman, G. E., Lee, D., Bendl, J. M., et al. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.03.17.533005 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“Yet statistical modeling of cell-level counts is challenging due to the low read depth and pervasive dropout effects 18,21 , and it is essential to model the fact that multiple cells are sampled from the same subject 19,20,22 .”
Tillmon, H., Soteros, B. M., Shen, L., Cong, Q., Wollet, M., General, J., Chin, H., Lee, J. B., Carreno, F. R., Morilak, D. A., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54007-5 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
“Pseudobulk analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between thecontrolandCORTconditionswereperformedwithLibra 118 withthe edgeR-LRT algorithm, and the results were plotted in a volcano plot using the EnhancedVolcano R package 119 .”
Glioma-neuronal circuit remodeling induces regional immunosuppression
Nejo, T., Krishna, S., Yamamichi, A., Lakshmanachetty, S., Jimenez, C., Lee, K. Y., Baker, D. L., Young, J. S., Chen, T., Phyu, S. M., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-60074-z · Cited by 58 · see citing works
“Additionally, gene signature score analysis was also performed with pseudo-bulk approach 65 .”
Ammons, D. T., Harris, R. A., Hopkins, L. S., Kurihara, J. N., Weishaar, K. M., & DOW, S. W. (2023) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1162700 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“When possible, we used pseudobulk conversion followed by a DESeq2 pipeline to evaluate differential gene expression (20).”
Methodİş, Ö., Wang, X., Reddy, J. S., Min, Y., Yılmaz, E., Bhattarai, P., Patel, T., Bergman, J., Quicksall, Z., Heckman, M. G., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48926-6 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“Given the increased number of participants in this integrated analysis, we applied negative binomial generalized linear mixed effects model for differential expression analysis 117 .”
Cell-type specific changes in PKC-delta neurons of the central amygdala during alcohol withdrawal
Dilly, G. A., Kittleman, C. W., Kerr, T. M., Messing, R. O., & Mayfield, R. D. (2022) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-022-02063-0 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“We used a “pseudobulking” approach [27, 32, 33] for a conservative estimate of differentially expressed genes (DEGs).”
MethodAdvances in single-cell long-read sequencing technologies
Gupta, P., O’Neill, H., Wolvetang, E. J., Chatterjee, A., & Gupta, I. (2024) · NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/nargab/lqae047 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“Differential gene expression analysis on single-cell data (short-read) poses significant challenges owing to low expression and variability, which requires judicious selection of the best-suited method ( 98 ).”
MethodDas, S., Rai, A. K., & Rai, S. N. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24070995 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“These lacunae motivate for requirement a sound epistemological framework for DEA of scRNA-seq data [79,80].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMulticellular factor analysis of single-cell data for a tissue-centric understanding of disease
Flores, R. R., Lanzer, J., Dimitrov, D., Velten, B., & Saez-Rodriguez, J. (2023) · bioRxiv · doi:10.7554/elife.93161 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“Differential gene expression analysis is usually performed for this task, in which the gene expression of each cell type is contrasted across various conditions ( Crowell et al., 2020 ; Squair et al., 2021 ).”
A comprehensive platform for analyzing longitudinal multi-omics data
Vasaikar, S. V., Savage, A. K., Gong, Q., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37432-w · Cited by 43 · see citing works
“Recent literature 14,17,18 revealed that many single-cell methods fail to properly account for variations in cross-sectional scRNA-seq data and generate many false DEGs as a result.”
BackgroundPertpy: an end-to-end framework for perturbation analysisPreprint
Heumos, L., Ji, Y., May, L., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.08.04.606516 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
A single-cell atlas of IL-23 inhibition in cutaneous psoriasis distinguishes clinical response
Wu, D., Hailer, A., Wang, S., Yuan, M., Chan, J. S., Kurdi, A., Han, D., Ali, H., D’Angio, H. B., Mayer, A. T., et al. (2024) · Science Immunology · doi:10.1126/sciimmunol.adi2848 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“Differential expression analysis was performed between disease groups on a per cluster basis using edgeR on patient-level pseudo-bulk data ( 35 ).”
MethodRevealing cell vulnerability in Alzheimer’s disease by single-cell transcriptomics
Saura, C. A., Deprada-Fernandez, Á., Capilla-López, M. D., & Parra‐Damas, A. (2022) · Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology · doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2022.05.007 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Sex-biased gene expression at single-cell resolution: cause and consequence of sexual dimorphism
Darolti, I., & Mank, J. E. (2023) · Evolution Letters · doi:10.1093/evlett/qrad013 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“Moreover, performing differential gene expression analyses on aggregate cell data within each cell type, rather than on individual cells, reduces the number of zeroes in the data and offers better performance especially for lowly expressed genes (Squair et al., 2021).”
- Authors
- 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., Levine, A. J., La Manno, G., Skinnider, M. A., & Courtine, G.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (US)
- Corresponding author
- Skinnider, Michael A.
- Courtine, Grégoire
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Communications
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2021-03-12
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5692-5692
- ISSN
- 2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8479118
- OpenAlex
- W3202649987
- Cited by
- 1,017
- References
- 105
- Citations by year
- 2026: 251 · 2025: 217 · 2024: 258 · 2023: 168 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 18 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 38.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Wings for Life
- Compute Canada
- Western Canada Research Grid
- Wyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (185728, 192558, 193445, 190495, 310030)
- University of British Columbia
- National Institutes of Health
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- National Supercomputing Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
- 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 › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Keywords
- single-cell differential expression, false discovery, biological replicates, comparison of statistical methods, differentially expressed genes, spinal cord injury, mouse spinal cord, cell type-specific responses, false positives
- MeSH terms
- Data Accuracy, Biological Variation, Population, Biological Variation, Individual, RNA-Seq, Animals, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Rabbits, Swine, Models, Statistical, Mice, Rats, Single-Cell Analysis, 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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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