Cited by 23Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Identifying Cell Types from Spatially Referenced Single-Cell Expression Datasets

Open access
Pettit, Jean-Baptiste, Tomer, Raju, Achim, Kaia, Richardson, Sylvia, Azizi, Lamiae, Marioni, John·2014·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

Complex tissues, such as the brain, are composed of multiple different cell types, each of which have distinct and important roles, for example in neural function. Moreover, it has recently been appreciated that the cells that make up these sub-cell types themselves harbour significant cell-to-cell heterogeneity, in particular at the level of gene expression. The ability to study this heterogeneity has been revolutionised by advances in experimental technology, such as Wholemount in Situ Hybridizations (WiSH) and single-cell RNA-sequencing. Consequently, it is now possible to study gene expression levels in thousands of cells from the same tissue type. After generating such data one of the key goals is to cluster the cells into groups that correspond to both known and putatively novel cell types. Whilst many clustering algorithms exist, they are typically unable to incorporate information about the spatial dependence between cells within the tissue under study. When such information exists it provides important insights that should be directly included in the clustering scheme. To this end we have developed a clustering method that uses a Hidden Markov Random Field (HMRF) model to exploit both quantitative measures of expression and spatial information. To accurately reflect the underlying biology, we extend current HMRF approaches by allowing the degree of spatial coherency to differ between clusters. We demonstrate the utility of our method using simulated data before applying it to cluster single cell gene expression data generated by applying WiSH to study expression patterns in the brain of the marine annelid Platynereis dumereilii. Our approach allows known cell types to be identified as well as revealing new, previously unexplored cell types within the brain of this important model system.

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.1003824

Cites

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?

  • ANOVA-based methods for differential expression between groups of cells can only detect variations captured by differences between discrete groups.

    “Critically, such methods can only detect variations that are captured by differences between discrete groups.”

    From SpatialDE: identification of spatially variable genes (2018) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results sections on the clustering method and model validation describe assigning voxels to clusters and comparing clustering approaches, not ANOVA-based differential-expression tests. Searches for “ANOVA,” differential expression between groups, and the claimed limitation found no passage in our copy that addresses it. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. [1]Montagna W, Parakkal P (1974) Structure and function of skin. Elsevier.
  2. [2]Elowitz MB, Levine AJ, Siggia ED, Swain PS (2002) Stochastic gene expression in a single cell. Science 297: 1183– 1186. 12183631
  3. [3]Tomer R, Denes AS, Tessmar-Raible K, Arendt D (2010) Profiling by image registration reveals common origin of annelid mushroom bodies and vertebrate pallium. Cell 142: 800– 809. 20813265
  4. [4]Perou CM, Jeffrey SS, Van De Rijn M, Rees CA, Eisen MB, et al (1999) Distinctive gene expression patterns in human mammary epithelial cells and breast cancers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96: 9212– 9217. PMC17759 10430922
  5. [5]Tautz D, Pfeifle C (1989) A non-radioactive in situ hybridization method for the localization of specific RNAs in drosophila embryos reveals translational control of the segmentation gene hunchback. Chromosoma 98: 81– 85. 2476281
  6. [6]Tang F, Barbacioru C, Wang Y, Nordman E, Lee C, et al (2009) mRNA-Seq wholetranscriptome analysis of a single cell. Nature Methods 6: 377– 382. 19349980
  7. [7]Shapiro E, Biezuner T, Linnarsson S (2013) Single-cell sequencing-based technologies will revolutionize whole-organism science. Nature Reviews Genetics 14: 618– 630. 23897237
  8. [8]Eisen MB, Spellman PT, Brown PO, Botstein D (1998) Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95: 14863– 14868. PMC24541 9843981
  9. [9]Tavazoie S, Hughes JD, Campbell MJ, Cho RJ, Church GM (1999) Systematic determination of genetic network architecture. Nature Genetics 22: 281– 285. 10391217
  10. [10]Tamayo P, Slonim D, Mesirov J, Zhu Q, Kitareewan S, et al (1999) Interpreting patterns of gene expression with self-organizing maps: methods and application to hematopoietic differentiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96: 2907– 2912. PMC15868 10077610
  11. [11]Lein ES, Hawrylycz MJ, Ao N, Ayres M, Bensinger A, et al (2007) Genome-wide atlas of gene expression in the adult mouse brain. Nature 445: 168– 176. 17151600
  12. [12]Eberwine J, Sul JY, Bartfai T, Kim J (2014) The promise of single-cell sequencing. Nature Methods 11: 25– 27. 24524134
  13. [13]Dang M, Govaert G (1998) Spatial fuzzy clustering using EM and markov random fields. International Journal of System Research and Information Science 8: 183– 202.
  14. [17]Fischer A, Henrich T, Arendt D (2010) The normal development of Platynereis dumerilii (Nereididae, Annelida). Frontiers in zoology 7: 31. 21192805 PMC3027123
  15. [19]Li SZ, Singh S (2009) Markov random field modeling in image analysis, volume 3. Springer.
  16. [20]Rozanov YA (1982) Markov random fields. Springer.
  17. [21]Li H, Kallergi M, Clarke L, Jain V, Clark R (1995) Markov random field for tumor detection in digital mammography. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 14: 565– 576. 18215861
  18. [22]Bishop CM, et al. (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning, volume 1. New York: Springer.
  19. [23]Zhang Y, Brady M, Smith S (2001) Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 20: 45– 57. 11293691
  20. [24]Paulsen RR, Baerentzen JA, Larsen R (2010) Markov random field surface reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16: 636– 646. 20467061
  21. [25]Zerubia J, Chellappa R (1993) Mean field annealing using compound Gauss-Markov random fields for edge detection and image estimation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 4: 703– 709. 18267770
  22. [26]Clausi DA, Yue B (2004) Comparing cooccurrence probabilities and Markov random fields for texture analysis of SAR sea ice imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 42: 215– 228.
  23. [27]Heitz F, Bouthemy P (1993) Multimodal estimation of discontinuous optical flow using Markov random fields. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 15: 1217– 1232.
  24. [28]Martın-Fernández M, Alberola Lopez C (2005) An approach for contour detection of human kidneys from ultrasound images using Markov random fields and active contours. Medical Image Analysis 9: 1– 23. 15581809
  25. [32]Held K, Kops ER, Krause BJ, Wells W, Kikinis R, et al (1997) Markov random field segmentation of brain MR images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 16: 878– 886. 9533587
  26. [33]Descombes X, Kruggel F, von Cramon DY (1998) Spatio-temporal fMRI analysis using Markov random fields. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 17: 1028– 1039. 10048860
  27. [34]Wei Z, Li H (2007) A Markov random field model for network-based analysis of genomic data. Bioinformatics 23: 1537– 1544. 17483504
  28. [35]Voss-Bohme A (2012) Multi-Scale Modeling in Morphogenesis: A Critical Analaysis of the Cellular Potts Model. PLoS One 7: e42852. 22984409 PMC3439478
  29. [37]Zhang H, Shi W, Wang Y, Hao M, Miao Z (2014) Spatial-attraction-based Markov random field approach for classification of high spatial resolution multispectral imagery. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 11: 489– 493.
  30. [41]McLachlan G, Peel D (2004) Finite mixture models. John Wiley & Sons.
  31. [42]Terakita A (2005) The opsins. Genome Biology 6: 213. 15774036 PMC1088937
  32. [43]Randel N, Bezares-Calderón LA, Gühmann M, Shahidi R, Jékely G (2013) Expression dynamics and protein localization of rhabdomeric opsins in platynereis larvae. Integrative and comparative biology 53: 7– 16. 23667045 PMC3687135
  33. [44]Weintraub H, Davis R, Tapscott S, Thayer M, Krause M, et al (1991) The myoD gene family: nodal point during specification of the muscle cell lineage. Science 251: 761– 766. 1846704
  34. [45]Michelson AM, Abmayr SM, Bate M, Arias AM, Maniatis T (1990) Expression of a MyoD family member prefigures muscle pattern in Drosophila embryos. Genes & Development 4: 2086– 2097. 2176634
  35. [46]Krcmery J, Camarata T, Kulisz A, Simon HG (2010) Nucleocytoplasmic functions of the PDZ-LIM protein family: new insights into organ development. Bioessays 32: 100– 108. 20091751 PMC3010972
  36. [47]Marziliano N, Mannarino S, Nespoli L, Diegoli M, Pasotti M, et al (2007) Barth syndrome associated with compound hemizygosity and heterozygosity of the TAZ and LDB3 genes. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 143: 907– 915. 17394203
  37. [48]Brunet J, Pattyn A (2002) Phox2 genes-from patterning to connectivity. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 12: 435. 12100889
  38. [49]Briscoe J, Sussel L, Serup P, Hartigan-O'Connor D, Jessell T, et al (1999) Homeobox gene Nkx2. 2 and specification of neuronal identity by graded Sonic hedgehog signalling. Nature 398: 622– 627. 10217145
  39. [50]Demilly A, Simionato E, Ohayon D, Kerner P, Garcès A, et al (2011) Coe genes are expressed in differentiating neurons in the central nervous system of protostomes. PLoS One 6: e21213. 21695052 PMC3117877
  40. [51]Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB, et al (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 39: 1– 38.
  41. [53]Pettit JB, Marioni JC (2013) bioWeb3D: an online webGL 3D data visualisation tool. BMC Bioinformatics 14: 185. 23758781 PMC3710502

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pettit, J.-B., Tomer, R., Achim, K., Richardson, S., Azizi, L., & Marioni, J.
Affiliations
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory (DE)
  • MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Azizi, Lamiae
  • Marioni, John
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2014-09-25
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
e1003824
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2069091083
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (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)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Medical Research Council
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 type annotation, hidden Markov random field, spatial clustering, cellular heterogeneity, single-cell RNA sequencing, brain cell types, Polychaeta
MeSH terms
Animals, Markov Chains, Polychaeta, Cluster Analysis, Databases, Factual, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling, Single-Cell Analysis

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