PreprintCited by 106Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

A joint model of unpaired data from scRNA-seq and spatial transcriptomics for imputing missing gene expression measurements

Open access
Lopez, Romain, Nazaret, Achille, Langevin, Maxime, Samaran, Jules, Regier, Jeffrey, Jordan, Michael I., Yosef, Nir·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Spatial studies of transcriptome provide biologists with gene expression maps of heterogeneous and complex tissues. However, most experimental protocols for spatial transcriptomics suffer from the need to select beforehand a small fraction of genes to be quantified over the entire transcriptome. Standard single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) is more prevalent, easier to implement and can in principle capture any gene but cannot recover the spatial location of the cells. In this manuscript, we focus on the problem of imputation of missing genes in spatial transcriptomic data based on (unpaired) standard scRNA-seq data from the same biological tissue. Building upon domain adaptation work, we propose gimVI, a deep generative model for the integration of spatial transcriptomic data and scRNA-seq data that can be used to impute missing genes. After describing our generative model and an inference procedure for it, we compare gimVI to alternative methods from computational biology or domain adaptation on real datasets and outperform Seurat Anchors, Liger and CORAL to impute held-out genes.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1905.02269

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Tangram outperformed other imputation methods such as gimVI and SpaGE with respect to various accuracy metrics and scalability.

    “It was shown to outperform other imputation methods such as gimVI225 and SpaGE226 with respect to various accuracy metrics and scalability215.”

    From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [225]

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: 6

  1. Amodio, M. and Krishnaswamy, S. MAGAN: Aligning Biological Manifolds. In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2018.
  2. Saunders, A., Macosko, E., Wysoker, A., Goldman, M., Krienen, F., de Rivera, H., Bien, E., Baum, M., Wang, S., Goeva, A., Nemesh, J., Kamitaki, N., Brumbaugh, S., Kulp, D., and McCarroll, S. A. A single-cell atlas of cell types, states, and other transcriptional patterns from nine regions of the adult mouse brain. bioRxiv , 2018.
  3. Stuart, T., Butler, A., Hoffman, P., Hafemeister, C., Papalexi, E., Mauck, W. M., Stoeckius, M., Smibert, P., and Satija, R. Comprehensive integration of single cell data. bioRxiv , 2018.
  4. Svensson, V. Droplet scrna-seq is not zero-inflated. bioRxiv , 2019.
  5. Welch, J., Kozareva, V., Ferreira, A., Vanderburg, C., Martin, C., and Macosko, E. Integrative inference of brain cell similarities and differences from single-cell genomics. bioRxiv , 2018.
  6. Xu, C., Lopez, R., Mehlman, E., Regier, J., Jordan, M. I., and Yosef, N. Harmonization and Annotation of Singlecell Transcriptomics data with Deep Generative Models. bioRxiv , 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lopez, R., Nazaret, A., Langevin, M., Samaran, J., Regier, J., Jordan, M. I., & Yosef, N.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2944323400
Cited by
105
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
spatial transcriptomics, single-cell RNA sequencing, domain adaptation, deep generative models, multi-omics integration, gene expression mapping

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