Cited by 74Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGene expression and cancer classification

Gene length and detection bias in single cell RNA sequencing protocols

Open access
Phipson, Belinda, Zappia, Luke, Oshlack, Alicia·2017·F1000Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background : Single cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has rapidly gained popularity for profiling transcriptomes of hundreds to thousands of single cells. This technology has led to the discovery of novel cell types and revealed insights into the development of complex tissues. However, many technical challenges need to be overcome during data generation. Due to minute amounts of starting material, samples undergo extensive amplification, increasing technical variability. A solution for mitigating amplification biases is to include unique molecular identifiers (UMIs), which tag individual molecules. Transcript abundances are then estimated from the number of unique UMIs aligning to a specific gene, with PCR duplicates resulting in copies of the UMI not included in expression estimates. Methods : Here we investigate the effect of gene length bias in scRNA-Seq across a variety of datasets that differ in terms of capture technology, library preparation, cell types and species. Results : We find that scRNA-seq datasets that have been sequenced using a full-length transcript protocol exhibit gene length bias akin to bulk RNA-seq data. Specifically, shorter genes tend to have lower counts and a higher rate of dropout. In contrast, protocols that include UMIs do not exhibit gene length bias, with a mostly uniform rate of dropout across genes of varying length. Across four different scRNA-Seq datasets profiling mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs), we found the subset of genes that are only detected in the UMI datasets tended to be shorter, while the subset of genes detected only in the full-length datasets tended to be longer. Conclusions : We find that the choice of scRNA-seq protocol influences the detection rate of genes, and that full-length datasets exhibit gene-length bias. In addition, despite clear differences between UMI and full-length transcript data, we illustrate that full-length and UMI data can be combined to reveal the underlying biology influencing expression of mESCs.

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 · 10.12688/f1000research.11290.1

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • Droplet-based methods do not appear to suffer from length bias.

    “Droplet-based methods do not appear to suffer from length bias (Phipson et al., 2017); thus, we cannot not attribute differences in capture efficiency to a preference for capturing longer genes.”

    From Single-Nucleus RNA-Seq Is Not Suitable for Detection of Microglial Activation Genes in Humans (2020) · cites this paper as Phipson et al., 2017

    The Results section ('UMI-based protocols do not suffer from gene length bias'; page unavailable) reports fairly uniform counts and dropout across gene lengths in an InDrop droplet-based dataset. The paper draws its broader conclusion for UMI-based protocols, not droplet-based methods generally; it does not establish that other droplet methods lack length bias. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 19

  1. Camp JG Badsha F Florio M: Human cerebral organoids recapitulate gene expression programs of fetal neocortex development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(51): 15672– 7. 10.1073/pnas.1520760112 26644564 PMC4697386 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Dobin A Davis CA Schlesinger F: STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2013; 29(1): 15– 21. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 23104886 PMC3530905 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ewels P Magnusson M Lundin S: MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics. 2016; 32(19): 3047– 3048. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354 27312411 PMC5039924 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Gentleman RC Carey VJ Bates DM: Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics. Genome Biol. 2004; 5(10): R80. 10.1186/gb-2004-5-10-r80 15461798 PMC545600 · DOI
  5. Grün D Kester L van Oudenaarden A: Validation of noise models for single-cell transcriptomics. Nat Methods. 2014; 11(6): 637– 640. 10.1038/nmeth.2930 24747814 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Guo F Yan L Guo H: The Transcriptome and DNA Methylome Landscapes of Human Primordial Germ Cells. Cell. 2015; 161(6): 1437– 1452. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.015 26046443 · DOI
  7. Hashimshony T Wagner F Sher N: CEL-Seq: Single-Cell RNA-Seq by Multiplexed Linear Amplification. Cell Rep. 2012; 2(3): 666– 673. 10.1016/j.celrep.2012.08.003 22939981 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Hicks SC Teng M Irizarry RA: On the widespread and critical impact of systematic bias and batch effects in single-cell RNA-Seq data. bioRxiv. 2015 10.1101/025528 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Klein AM Mazutis L Akartuna I: Droplet Barcoding for Single-Cell Transcriptomics Applied to Embryonic Stem Cells. Cell. 2015; 161(5): 1187– 1201. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.044 26000487 PMC4441768 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Langmead B Trapnell C Pop M: Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 2009; 10(3): R25. 10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-r25 19261174 PMC2690996 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Liao Y Smyth GK Shi W: featureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features. Bioinformatics. 2014; 30(7): 923– 30. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt656 24227677 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Liao Y Smyth GK Shi W: The Subread aligner: fast, accurate and scalable read mapping by seed-and-vote. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 41(10): e108. 10.1093/nar/gkt214 23558742 PMC3664803 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Macosko EZ Basu A Satija R: Highly Parallel Genome-wide Expression Profiling of Individual Cells Using Nanoliter Droplets. Cell. 2015; 161(5): 1202– 1214. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.002 26000488 PMC4481139 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Patro R Duggal G Love MI: Salmon provides fast and bias-aware quantification of transcript expression. Nat Methods. 2017; 14(4): 417– 419. 10.1038/nmeth.4197 28263959 PMC5600148 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Ritchie ME Phipson B Wu D: limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015; 43(7): e47. 10.1093/nar/gkv007 25605792 PMC4402510 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Robinson MD McCarthy DJ Smyth GK: edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010; 26(1): 139– 140. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 19910308 PMC2796818 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Sadedin SP Pope B Oshlack A: Bpipe: a tool for running and managing bioinformatics pipelines. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(11): 1525– 1526. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts167 22500002 · DOI
  18. Soumillon M Cacchiarelli D Semrau S: Characterization of directed differentiation by high-throughput single-cell RNA-Seq. bioRxiv. 2014 10.1101/003236 · DOI
  19. Zheng GX Terry JM Belgrader P: Massively parallel digital transcriptional profiling of single cells. bioRxiv. 2016 10.1101/065912 PMC5241818 28091601 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phipson, B., Zappia, L., & Oshlack, A.
Affiliations
  • Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
F1000Research
Published
2017-04-28
Volume
6
Pages
595
ISSN
2046-1402 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2952362302
Cited by
74
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • F1000Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1126157)
  • Australian Federal Government
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
detection bias, single-cell RNA sequencing, unique molecular identifiers, dropout, PCR bias, mouse embryonic stem cells, gene expression profiling, library preparation

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