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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1186/s13059-016-0947-7PMC PMC4848819
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

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

Figures

Fig. 1 Performance of existing normalization methods on the simulated data with DE genes and stochastic zeroes. The size factor estimates for all cells are plotted against the true values for a DESeq, b TMM, and c library size normalization. Simulations were performed with no DE (first row), moderate DE (second row), strong DE (third row), and varying magnitudes of DE (fourth row). Axes are shown on a log-scale. For comparison, each set of size factors was scaled such that the grand mean across cells was the same as that for the true values. The red line represents equality between the rescaled estimates and true factors. Cells in the first, second, and third subpopulations are shown in black, blue, and orange, respectively. DE differentially expressed, TMM trimmed mean of M values
Fig. 1 Performance of existing normalization methods on the simulated data with DE genes and stochastic zeroes. The size factor estimates for all cells are plotted against the true values for a DESeq, b TMM, and c library size normalization. Simulations were performed with no DE (first row), moderate DE (second row), strong DE (third row), and varying magnitudes of DE (fourth row). Axes are shown on a log-scale. For comparison, each set of size factors was scaled such that the grand mean across cells was the same as that for the true values. The red line represents equality between the rescaled estimates and true factors. Cells in the first, second, and third subpopulations are shown in black, blue, and orange, respectively. DE differentially expressed, TMM trimmed mean of M valuesCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Illustration of the effect of removing stochastic zeroes (black) from the distribution of ratios across all genes. Distributions are shown for cells with a small and b large θ j. The estimated median ratio (dashed) is increased beyond the true median (full) upon removal of zeroes, which results in overestimation of the size factor for the cell. This effect is more pronounced for cells with small θ j that have greater numbers of zeroes, compared to cells with large θ j where the estimated and true medians are more similar
Fig. 2 Illustration of the effect of removing stochastic zeroes (black) from the distribution of ratios across all genes. Distributions are shown for cells with a small and b large θ j. The estimated median ratio (dashed) is increased beyond the true median (full) upon removal of zeroes, which results in overestimation of the size factor for the cell. This effect is more pronounced for cells with small θ j that have greater numbers of zeroes, compared to cells with large θ j where the estimated and true medians are more similarCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Schematic of the deconvolution method. All cells in the data set are averaged to make a reference pseudo-cell. Expression values for cells in pool A are summed together and normalized against the reference to yield a pool-based size factor θ A. This is equal to the sum of the cell-based factors θ j for cells j=1–4 and can be used to formulate a linear equation. (For simplicity, the t j term is assumed to be unity here.) Repeating this for multiple pools (e.g., pool B) leads to the construction of a linear system that can be solved to estimate θ j for each cell j
Fig. 3 Schematic of the deconvolution method. All cells in the data set are averaged to make a reference pseudo-cell. Expression values for cells in pool A are summed together and normalized against the reference to yield a pool-based size factor θ A. This is equal to the sum of the cell-based factors θ j for cells j=1–4 and can be used to formulate a linear equation. (For simplicity, the t j term is assumed to be unity here.) Repeating this for multiple pools (e.g., pool B) leads to the construction of a linear system that can be solved to estimate θ j for each cell jCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Size factor estimates from the deconvolution method in the simulation with DE genes and stochastic zeroes. These are shown against the true values for scenarios with a no DE, b moderate DE, c strong DE, and d varying magnitude of DE. Cells in the first, second, and third subpopulations are shown in black, blue, and orange, respectively. Axes are shown on a log-scale, and the red line represents equality with the true factors. DE differentially expressed
Fig. 4 Size factor estimates from the deconvolution method in the simulation with DE genes and stochastic zeroes. These are shown against the true values for scenarios with a no DE, b moderate DE, c strong DE, and d varying magnitude of DE. Cells in the first, second, and third subpopulations are shown in black, blue, and orange, respectively. Axes are shown on a log-scale, and the red line represents equality with the true factors. DE differentially expressedCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Comparisons between the estimated size factors. Those from the deconvolution method are compared to those from a DESeq, b TMM, and c library size normalization. This is shown for the brain (top) and inDrop data sets (bottom). Axes are on a log-scale, and the red line represents equality between the two sets of factors. All sets of factors were centered to a median of unity prior to comparison. For the brain data, cells classified by Zeisel et al. as oligodendrocytes or pyramidal CA1 cells are shown here in orange and blue, respectively. TMM trimmed mean of M values
Fig. 5 Comparisons between the estimated size factors. Those from the deconvolution method are compared to those from a DESeq, b TMM, and c library size normalization. This is shown for the brain (top) and inDrop data sets (bottom). Axes are on a log-scale, and the red line represents equality between the two sets of factors. All sets of factors were centered to a median of unity prior to comparison. For the brain data, cells classified by Zeisel et al. as oligodendrocytes or pyramidal CA1 cells are shown here in orange and blue, respectively. TMM trimmed mean of M valuesCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 999

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
L. Lun, A. T., Bach, K., & Marioni, J. C.
Affiliations
European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Marioni, John C.
ORCID
Venue
Genome Biology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-04-27
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
75-75
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
DOI
10.1186/s13059-016-0947-7
PMC
PMC4848819
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