Cited by 198Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

False signals induced by single-cell imputation

Open access
Andrews, Tallulah S., Hemberg, Martin·2018·F1000Research

Abstract

Background: Single-cell RNASeq is a powerful tool for measuring gene expression at the resolution of individual cells. A significant challenge in the analysis of this data is the large amount of zero values, representing either missing data or no expression. Several imputation approaches have been proposed to deal with this issue, but since these methods generally rely on structure inherent to the dataset under consideration they may not provide any additional information. Methods: We evaluated the risk of generating false positive or irreproducible results when imputing data with five different methods. We applied each method to a variety of simulated datasets as well as to permuted real single-cell RNASeq datasets and consider the number of false positive gene-gene correlations and differentially expressed genes. Using matched 10X Chromium and Smartseq2 data from the Tabula Muris database we examined the reproducibility of markers before and after imputation. Results: The extent of false-positive signals introduced by imputation varied considerably by method. Data smoothing based methods, MAGIC and knn-smooth, generated a very high number of false-positives in both real and simulated data. Model-based imputation methods typically generated fewer false-positives but this varied greatly depending on how well datasets conformed to the underlying model. Furthermore, only SAVER exhibited reproducibility comparable to unimputed data across matched data. Conclusions: Imputation of single-cell RNASeq data introduces circularity that can generate false-positive results. Thus, statistical tests applied to imputed data should be treated with care. Additional filtering by effect size can reduce but not fully eliminate these effects. Of the methods we considered, SAVER was the least likely to generate false or irreproducible results, thus should be favoured over alternatives if imputation is necessary.

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.16613.1

Cites

36 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 1 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?

  • Inappropriate use of published methods or incorrect selection of user settings can result in bias in data analysis and false conclusions.

    “Inappropriate use of these published methods or incorrect selection of user settings can result in a bias in data analysis (such as by introducing artificial, non-biological signals) and false conclusions [41, 42].”
  • False correlation signals have been reported as a result of expression recovery.

    “Indeed, false correlation signals have been reported as a result of expression recovery (Andrews & Hemberg, 2018).”

    From Current best practices in single-cell RNA-seq analysis: a tutorial (2019) · cites this paper as Andrews & Hemberg, 2018

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
Andrews, T. S., & Hemberg, M.
Affiliations
Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Hemberg, Martin
Venue
F1000Research
Published
2018-11-02
Volume
7
Pages
1740
ISSN
2046-1402 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4231157025
Cited by
142
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 12
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
F1000Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (SangerInstituteCoreFunding)
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, missing data imputation, false positives, zero values, gene-gene correlation, differentially expressed genes, savers, magic, model-based imputation, Tabula Muris

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