PreprintCited by 122Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

A comparison of marker gene selection methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Open access
Pullin, Jeffrey M., McCarthy, Davis J.·2022·Genome biology

Abstract

The development of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has enabled scientists to catalogue and probe the transcriptional heterogeneity of individual cells in unprecedented detail. A common step in the analysis of scRNA-seq data is the selection of so-called marker genes, most commonly to enable annotation of the biological cell types present in the sample. In this paper we benchmarked 56 computational methods for selecting marker genes in scRNA-seq data. The performance of the methods was compared using 10 real scRNA-seq datasets and over 170 additional simulated datasets. Methods were compared on their ability to recover simulated and expert-annotated marker genes, the predictive performance and characteristics of the gene sets they select, their memory usage and speed and their implementation quality. In addition, various case studies were used to scrutinise the most commonly used methods, highlighting issues and inconsistencies. Overall, we present a comprehensive evaluation of methods for selecting marker genes in scRNA-seq data. Our results highlight the efficacy of simple methods, especially the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Student’s t-test and logistic regression. All code used in the evaluation, including an extensible Snakemake pipeline, is available at: https://gitlab.svi.edu.au/biocellgen-public/mage_2020_marker-gene-benchmarking .

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2022.05.09.490241

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Wilcoxon rank-sum tests performed best for identifying marker genes.

    “For this purpose, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests performed best, but owing to the nature of clustering, P values can be inflated and might lead to false discoveries, as the same data are used to define the labels that we test for differences between60,61.”

    From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [60]

  • P values from marker gene tests can be inflated and lead to false discoveries because the same data are used to define labels and test differences.

    “For this purpose, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests performed best, but owing to the nature of clustering, P values can be inflated and might lead to false discoveries, as the same data are used to define the labels that we test for differences between60,61.”

    From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [60]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. [59]Ibrahim MM, Kramann R. genesorteR: Feature Ranking in Clustered Single Cell Data. bioRxiv. 676379. New Results. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/676379v2. · DOI
  2. [68]Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. Accessed 13 Dec 2023.
  3. [72]Zeisel A, Muñoz-Manchado AB, Codeluppi S, Lönnerberg P, La Manno G, Juréus A, et al. Brain Structure. Cell Types in the Mouse Cortex and Hippocampus Revealed by Single-Cell RNA-seq. Sci N Y. 2015;347(6226):1138–1142. 10.1126/science.aaa1934. 25700174 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [76]Pullin JM, McCarthy DJ. Code to reproduce: A comparison of marker gene selection methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data. GitLab. https://gitlab.svi.edu.au/biocellgen-public/mage_2020_marker-gene-benchmarking. PMC10895860 38409056
  5. [77]Pullin JM, McCarthy DJ. Supplementary code to reproduce: A comparison of marker gene selection methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/records/10447352. Accessed 13 Dec 2023. PMC10895860 38409056
  6. [79]Lawlor N, George J, Bolisetty M, Kursawe R, Sun L, Sivakamasundari V, et al. Data from ‘Single-Cell Transcriptomes Identify Human Islet Cell Signatures and Reveal Cell-Type–Specific Expression Changes in Type 2 Diabetes’. Gene Expression Omnibus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE8646. Accessed 13 Dec 2023. PMC5287227 27864352
  7. [80]Natri HM, Azodi CBD, Peter L, Taylor CJ, Chugh S, Kendle R, et al. Data from ‘Cell type-specific and disease-associated eQTL in the human lung’. Gene Expression Omnibus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE227136. Accessed 13 Dec 2023.
  8. [81]Kleshchevnikov V, Shmatko A, Dann E, Aivazidis A, King HW, Li T, et al. Data from ‘Cell2location maps fine-grained cell types in spatial transcriptomics’. ArrayExpress. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/arrayexpress/studies/E-MTAB-11115?query=E-MTAB-11115. Accessed 13 Dec 2023. 35027729
  9. [82]Paul F, Arkin Y, Giladi A, Jaitin DA, Kenigsberg E, Keren-Shaul H, et al. Data from ‘Transcriptional Heterogeneity and Lineage Commitment in Myeloid Progenitors’. Gene Expression Omnibus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE72857. Accessed 13 Dec 2023.
  10. [84]Hao Y, Hao S, Andersen-Nissen E, Mauck WM, Zheng S, Butler A, et al. Data from ‘Integrated Analysis of Multimodal Single-Cell Data’. Gene Expression Omnibus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE164378. Accessed 13 Dec 2023.
  11. [85]Zhao J, Zhang S, Liu Y, He X, Qu M, Xu G, et al. Data from ‘Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Reveals the Heterogeneity of Liver-Resident Immune Cells in Human’. Gene Expression Omnibus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE125188. Accessed 13 Dec 2023.
  12. [86]Domínguez Conde C, Xu C, Jarvis LB, Rainbow DB, Wells SB, Gomes T, et al. Data from ‘Cross-tissue immune cell analysis reveals tissue-specific features in humans’. ArrayExpress. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/arrayexpress/studies/E-MTAB-11536?query=E-MTAB-11536. Accessed 13 Dec 2023. PMC7612735 35549406
  13. [87]Stephenson E, Reynolds G, Botting RA, Calero-Nieto FJ, Morgan MD, Tuong ZK, et al. Data from ‘Single-cell multi-omics analysis of the immune response in COVID-19’. ArrayExpress. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/arrayexpress/studies/E-MTAB-10026?query=E-MTAB-10026. Accessed 13 Dec 2023. PMC8121667 33879890
  14. [88]Ren X, Wen W, Fan X, Hou W, Su B, Cai P, et al. Data from ‘COVID-19 immune features revealed by a large-scale single-cell transcriptome atlas’. Gene Expression Omnibus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE158055. Accessed 13 Dec 2023.
  15. [90]Pullin JM, McCarthy DJ. Supplementary data to reproduce: ‘A comparison of marker gene selection methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/records/10447426. Accessed 13 Dec 2023. PMC10895860 38409056

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pullin, J. M., & McCarthy, D. J.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
McCarthy, Davis J.
Venue
Genome biology
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2022-05-10
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
56-56
ISSN
1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392167979
Cited by
122
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 10
FWCI
15.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Genome biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Baker Foundation (GNT1162829)
  • University of Melbourne
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1162829, 1112681, 1195595)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
marker gene selection, single-cell RNA sequencing, benchmarking, cell type annotation, Mann-Whitney test, Student's t-test, logistic regression, simulated data, computational performance
MeSH terms
Exome Sequencing, Software, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Expression Profiling, Single-Cell Analysis

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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