PreprintCited by 1,037Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Confronting false discoveries in single-cell differential expression

Open access
Squair, Jordan W., Gautier, Matthieu, Kathe, Claudia, Anderson, Mark A., James, Nicholas D., Hutson, Thomas H., Hudelle, Rémi, Qaiser, Taha +6 more·2021·Nature Communications

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1101/2021.03.12.435024

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
    § Discussion

    The 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
    § Results

    Mixed 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
    § Methods

    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.

    “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
    § Discussion

    The 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 checked
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Inferences 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).

    Premisecitation

    The 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 checked
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The 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.

    Premisecitation

    The 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.

    Interpretationcitation

    Several 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.

    Premisecitation

    Previous 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
    § Results

    A 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Applying 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    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.

    “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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § Mixed models

    Mixed 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Methods

    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
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Single-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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    Numerous 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Results

    This 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results

    Valid 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Results

    This 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 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
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Results

    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.

    “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 claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § Discussion

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Mixed models

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion

    These 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Methods

    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.

    “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
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Inference 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The 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 claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Simulations 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Methods 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Single-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 data

    Aggregating 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Accounting 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Underestimation 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The 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
40 of 40
  • 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.”
9 of 9

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 measured
  • Differential 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].”
  • 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).”
  • 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 measured
  • Modeling pseudobulk counts prevents pseudo-replication bias.

    “On the one hand, modeling pseudobulk counts has been demonstrated to prevent pseudo-replication bias36,37.”

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

    Minor

    The Results say variability was assessed in 41 human and mouse datasets, whereas the Methods specify 38 datasets, comprising 18 human and 20 mouse datasets.

  • Number of edgeR-LRT RNAscope probes conflicts with the validation count

    Minor

    The 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.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10.1007/978-1-4939-3578-9$\_$19 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2021-03-12
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
5692-5692
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
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
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