Cited by 468Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsRNA Research and SplicingGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

From single-cell to cell-pool transcriptomes: Stochasticity in gene expression and RNA splicing

Open access
Marinov, Georgi K., Williams, Brian A., McCue, Ken, Schroth, Gary P., Gertz, Jason, Myers, Richard M., Wold, Barbara J.·2014·Genome Research

Abstract

Single-cell RNA-seq mammalian transcriptome studies are at an early stage in uncovering cell-to-cell variation in gene expression, transcript processing and editing, and regulatory module activity. Despite great progress recently, substantial challenges remain, including discriminating biological variation from technical noise. Here we apply the SMART-seq single-cell RNA-seq protocol to study the reference lymphoblastoid cell line GM12878. By using spike-in quantification standards, we estimate the absolute number of RNA molecules per cell for each gene and find significant variation in total mRNA content: between 50,000 and 300,000 transcripts per cell. We directly measure technical stochasticity by a pool/split design and find that there are significant differences in expression between individual cells, over and above technical variation. Specific gene coexpression modules were preferentially expressed in subsets of individual cells, including one enriched for mRNA processing and splicing factors. We assess cell-to-cell variation in alternative splicing and allelic bias and report evidence of significant differences in splice site usage that exceed splice variation in the pool/split comparison. Finally, we show that transcriptomes from small pools of 30–100 cells approach the information content and reproducibility of contemporary RNA-seq from large amounts of input material. Together, our results define an experimental and computational path forward for analyzing gene expression in rare cell types and cell states.

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/gr.161034.113

Cites

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?

  • Deeper sequencing for scRNA-seq will do little to improve quantification as the number of individual mRNA molecules in a cell is small (100-300,000 transcripts) and only a fraction are successfully reverse-transcribed to cDNA.

    “Deeper sequencing for scRNA-seq will do little to improve quantification as the number of individual mRNA molecules in a cell is small (in the order of 100–300,000 transcripts) and only a fraction of them are successfully reverse-transcribed to cDNA [8, 176]”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [176]

  • Some facets of cellular identity are transient in time and space, and temporal processes may progress along trajectories, oscillate, or be influenced by spatial position.

    “First, in contexts such as development and physiology, some facets of cellular identity are transient in time and space. Temporal processes may, for example, progress along one or more trajectories (e.g., differentiation); oscillate continuously between cellular states (e.g., the cell cycle98,99 or circadian rhythm100); or be influenced by the physical position and neighborhood of the cell71,93.”
  • Canonical structure is likely in most normal tissues (e.g., brain structures) and physiological processes (e.g., embryogenesis).

    “While this is a likely situation in most normal tissues (e.g., brain structures71) and physiological processes (e.g., embryogenesis93)”
  • Seurat and a method by Achim et al. combine limited spatial cues for landmark genes with scRNA-seq from dissociated tissue to infer the spatial location of dissociated cells.

    “This has inspired the development of two methods, Seurat (A.R. and colleagues)93 and a method by Achim et al.71 that combine limited spatial cues for landmark genes with single-cell RNA-seq of cells from the same type of dissociated tissue to infer the spatial location of the dissociated cells through the patterns reflected by the landmark genes.”
  • Even without new experimental methods, computational techniques can help relate distinct data types across single cells, as was effectively shown for relating spatially resolved in situ hybridization data to scRNA-seq to derive a spatial mapping of cells to positions.

    “Even without new experimental methods, computational techniques can help relate distinct data types across single cells, as was effectively shown for relating spatially resolved in situ hybridization data to scRNA-seq to derive a spatial mapping of cells to positions71,93.”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 70 · Cited by 468

Authors
Marinov, G. K., Williams, B. A., McCue, K., Schroth, G. P., Gertz, J., Myers, R. M., & Wold, B. J.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Illumina (United States) (US)
  • HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology (US)
Corresponding author
Wold, Barbara J.
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2013-12-03
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
496-510
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143787026
Cited by
468
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 22
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Simons Foundation
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U54HG004576, U54HG006998)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
single-cell RNA sequencing, alternative splicing, RNA splicing, technical noise, SMART-seq, gene co-expression modules, allelic bias, rare cell types
MeSH terms
Genes, Humans, RNA, RNA Splicing, Reproducibility of Results, Genome, Human, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Expression Profiling, Cell Line, Tumor, Transcriptome

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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