PreprintCited by 164Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Unsupervised removal of systematic background noise from droplet-based single-cell experiments using <tt>CellBender</tt>

Open access
Fleming, Stephen J., Chaffin, Mark D., Arduini, Alessandro, Akkad, Amer-Denis, Banks, Eric, Marioni, John C., Philippakis, Anthony A., Ellinor, Patrick T. +1 more·2019·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41592-023-01943-7 · Paper page

Abstract

Droplet-based single-cell assays, including scRNA-seq, snRNA-seq, and CITE-seq, produce a significant amount of background noise counts, the hallmark of which is non-zero counts in cell-free droplets and off-target gene expression in unexpected cell types. The presence of such systematic background noise is a potential source of batch effect and spurious differential gene expression. Here we develop a deep generative model for noise-contaminated data that is structured to reflect the phenomenology of background noise generation in droplet-based single-cell assays. The proposed model successfully distinguishes cell-containing from cell-free droplets without supervision, learns the profile of background noise, and retrieves a noise-free quantification in an end-to-end fashion. We present a scalable and robust implementation of our method as a module in the open-source software package CellBender . We show that CellBender operates close to the theoretically optimal denoising limit in simulated datasets, and present extensive evaluations using real datasets and experimental benchmarks drawn from different tissues, protocols, and modalities to show that CellBender significantly improves the agreement of droplet-based single-cell data with established gene expression patterns, and that the learned background noise profile provides evidence for degraded or uncaptured cell types.

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 · 10.1101/791699

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • CellBender's deep generative model comes with a heavy computational cost compared to other tools, and its output provides an imputed cell profile rather than raw counts with the background subtracted off.

    “This deep generative model comes with a heavy computational cost compared to other tools, and the output of the model (which in effect estimates mg, c for each cell type) provides an imputed cell profile rather than raw counts with the background “subtracted off,” which SoupX provides.”

    From SoupX removes ambient RNA contamination from droplet-based single-cell RNA sequencing data (2020) · cites this paper as [22]

    Section 3.3.2 describes the output as a model-inferred, background-free expression-rate estimate that is subsequently quantized, supporting the distinction from simply subtracting background counts from raw counts. Section 3.2.1 reports runtimes of 30 minutes to several hours on a GPU, but does not compare computational cost with other tools; that comparative claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CellBender uses a deep generative model to estimate shared expression patterns likely to represent distinct cell types while simultaneously removing contamination.

    “Cell Bender [22] uses a deep generative model to estimate shared expression patterns likely to represent distinct cell types while simultaneously removing contamination.”
  • Removing ambient RNA as an initial quality-control step improves downstream analyses for many tissues.

    “one should consider removing ambient RNA as an initial analysis step in quality control to improve downstream analyses for many tissues21–23.”

    From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary De- Vito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. Automatic differen- tiation in PyTorch. In NIPS Autodiff Workshop, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fleming, S. J., Chaffin, M. D., Arduini, A., Akkad, A.-D., Banks, E., Marioni, J. C., Philippakis, A. A., Ellinor, P. T., & Babadi, M.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Fleming, Stephen J.
  • Babadi, Mehrtash
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2019-10-03
OpenAlex
W2978980575
Cited by
164
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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
background noise suppression, deep generative models, unsupervised denoising, single-cell RNA sequencing, CITE-seq, batch effects

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