Cited by 1,108Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Pooling across cells to normalize single-cell RNA sequencing data with many zero counts

Open access
L. Lun, Aaron T., Bach, Karsten, Marioni, John C.·2016·Genome Biology

Abstract

Normalization of single-cell RNA sequencing data is necessary to eliminate cell-specific biases prior to downstream analyses. However, this is not straightforward for noisy single-cell data where many counts are zero. We present a novel approach where expression values are summed across pools of cells, and the summed values are used for normalization. Pool-based size factors are then deconvolved to yield cell-based factors. Our deconvolution approach outperforms existing methods for accurate normalization of cell-specific biases in simulated data. Similar behavior is observed in real data, where deconvolution improves the relevance of results of downstream analyses.

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 · 10.1186/s13059-016-0947-7

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Pseudobulk analysis methods are among the best-performing methods for differential state analysis and for making sample-level comparisons from single-cell data, and help to overcome some of the inherent sparsity in scRNA-seq data.

    “A recent comparative analysis found that pseudobulk analysis methods are among the best-performing methods for differential state analysis and for making sample-level comparisons from single-cell data, and help to overcome some of the inherent sparsity in scRNA-seq data19,89.”

    From Dissection of artifactual and confounding glial signatures by single-cell sequencing of mouse and human brain (2022) · cites this paper as [89]

    The Background says pooling counts across cells reduces problematic zeroes, supporting the sparsity point. But the paper evaluates pooled-count normalization and deconvolution, not pseudobulk methods for differential state analysis or sample-level comparisons; it does not establish that those methods are among the best-performing. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Aggregation of cell-type-specific expression values within an individual by sum or mean is a suggested approach to account for within-individual correlation.

    “However, one suggested approach to account for within-individual correlation is the aggregation of cell-type-specific expression values within an individual by using either a sum or a mean11–13.”

    From A practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies (2021) · cites this paper as [11]

    In Results and discussion, under “Summation and deconvolution with linear equations” (page unavailable), the paper sums expression across pools of cells and uses a mean across all cells as a reference. It does not describe aggregating cell-type-specific values within an individual to account for within-individual correlation; its stated purpose is normalization despite many zero counts. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Method-specific genes are unlikely to remain method specific at higher expression levels, and their impact on conclusions drawn from scRNA-seq data is rather limited.

    “This suggests that they are unlikely to remain method specific at higher expression levels and that their impact on conclusions drawn from scRNAseq data is rather limited (Lun et al., 2016).”

    From Comparative Analysis of Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Methods (2017) · cites this paper as Lun et al., 2016

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
L. Lun, A. T., Bach, K., & Marioni, J. C.
Affiliations
European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Marioni, John C.
Venue
Genome Biology
Published
2016-04-27
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
75-75
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
OpenAlex
W2343956310
Cited by
1,108
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 135 · 2022: 134 · 2021: 149 · 2020: 146 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 17
FWCI
45.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Genome biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (GB) (SW73)
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
single-cell RNA sequencing, data normalization, zero counts, size factor, deconvolution
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Calibration, Humans, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Expression Profiling, Single-Cell Analysis, Signal-To-Noise Ratio

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