Cited by 58Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Modeling Bi-modality Improves Characterization of Cell Cycle on Gene Expression in Single Cells

Open access
McDavid, Andrew, Dennis, Lucas, Danaher, Patrick, Finak, Greg, Krouse, Michael, Wang, Alice, Webster, Philippa, Beechem, Joseph +1 more·2014·PLoS Computational Biology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Advances in high-throughput, single cell gene expression are allowing interrogation of cell heterogeneity. However, there is concern that the cell cycle phase of a cell might bias characterizations of gene expression at the single-cell level. We assess the effect of cell cycle phase on gene expression in single cells by measuring 333 genes in 930 cells across three phases and three cell lines. We determine each cell's phase non-invasively without chemical arrest and use it as a covariate in tests of differential expression. We observe bi-modal gene expression, a previously-described phenomenon, wherein the expression of otherwise abundant genes is either strongly positive, or undetectable within individual cells. This bi-modality is likely both biologically and technically driven. Irrespective of its source, we show that it should be modeled to draw accurate inferences from single cell expression experiments. To this end, we propose a semi-continuous modeling framework based on the generalized linear model, and use it to characterize genes with consistent cell cycle effects across three cell lines. Our new computational framework improves the detection of previously characterized cell-cycle genes compared to approaches that do not account for the bi-modality of single-cell data. We use our semi-continuous modelling framework to estimate single cell gene co-expression networks. These networks suggest that in addition to having phase-dependent shifts in expression (when averaged over many cells), some, but not all, canonical cell cycle genes tend to be co-expressed in groups in single cells. We estimate the amount of single cell expression variability attributable to the cell cycle. We find that the cell cycle explains only 5%-17% of expression variability, suggesting that the cell cycle will not tend to be a large nuisance factor in analysis of the single cell transcriptome.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003696

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Some methods adapt well-established tools previously used in bulk genomics to the particular challenges of noise and scale in single-cell data, whereas others are designed specifically for single-cell data.

    “Some of these methods adapt well-established tools previously used in bulk genomics to the particular challenges of noise and scale in single-cell data1,44,89,90,105, whereas others are designed specifically for single-cell data71,93,135,137.”

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
McDavid, A., Dennis, L., Danaher, P., Finak, G., Krouse, M., Wang, A., Webster, P., Beechem, J., & Gottardo, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Nanostring Technologies (United States) (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
  • BD Biosciences (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • McDavid, Andrew
  • Dennis, Lucas
  • Danaher, Patrick
  • Finak, Greg
  • Krouse, Michael
  • Wang, Alice
  • Webster, Philippa
  • Beechem, Joseph
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2014-07-17
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
e1003696
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2952877818
Cited by
58
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11
FWCI
4.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (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)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U19AI089986)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB008400)
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 › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
cell cycle phases, single-cell gene expression, cell cycle genes, differential gene expression, generalized linear models, gene co-expression network, cellular heterogeneity, expression variability
MeSH terms
Cell Cycle, Cell Line, Humans, Models, Genetic, Gene Expression, Genes, cdc, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling, Gene Regulatory Networks

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