Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27165153›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2016

Exploiting single-cell expression to characterize co-expression replicability.

Megan Crow, Anirban Paul, Sara Ballouz, Z Josh Huang, Jesse Gillis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Gene set optimization for single cell transcriptomics.Computational intelligence methods for bioinformatics and biostatistics : ... international meeting, CIBB ... : revised selected papers. CIBB (Meeting) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Megan CrowCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, One Bungtown Road, Cold Spring, Harbor, NY, 11724, USA.
Anirban PaulCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, One Bungtown Road, Cold Spring, Harbor, NY, 11724, USA.
Sara BallouzCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, One Bungtown Road, Cold Spring, Harbor, NY, 11724, USA.
Z Josh HuangCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, One Bungtown Road, Cold Spring, Harbor, NY, 11724, USA.
Jesse GillisCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, One Bungtown Road, Cold Spring, Harbor, NY, 11724, USA. jgillis@cshl.edu.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory · US

Funding

Cell-based genomic analysis of molecular pathology in Mouse Models of Rett SyndromeR01MH102616 · NIMH · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI HUANG, Z JOSH · 2014 to 2018
$3.8M
NIMH NIH HHS 1R01MH102616-01NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH102616
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-expression networks have been a useful tool for functional genomics, providing important clues about the cellular and biochemical mechanisms that are active in normal and disease processes. However, co-expression analysis is often treated as a black box with results being hard to trace to their basis in the data. Here, we use both published and novel single-cell RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data to understand fundamental drivers of gene-gene connectivity and replicability in co-expression networks.

resultsWe perform the first major analysis of single-cell co-expression, sampling from 31 individual studies. Using neighbor voting in cross-validation, we find that single-cell network connectivity is less likely to overlap with known functions than co-expression derived from bulk data, with functional variation within cell types strongly resembling that also occurring across cell types. To identify features and analysis practices that contribute to this connectivity, we perform our own single-cell RNA-seq experiment of 126 cortical interneurons in an experimental design targeted to co-expression. By assessing network replicability, semantic similarity and overall functional connectivity, we identify technical factors influencing co-expression and suggest how they can be controlled for. Many of the technical effects we identify are expression-level dependent, making expression level itself highly predictive of network topology. We show this occurs generally through re-analysis of the BrainSpan RNA-seq data.

conclusionsTechnical properties of single-cell RNA-seq data create confounds in co-expression networks which can be identified and explicitly controlled for in any supervised analysis. This is useful both in improving co-expression performance and in characterizing single-cell data in generally applicable terms, permitting cross-laboratory comparison within a common framework.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell SeparationGene Expression ProfilingGene Regulatory NetworksMiceReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, RNASingle-Cell AnalysisAutismBrainCo-expressionInterneuronMeta-analysisNetworkNormalizationRNA-seqSingle cell

Identifiers

PMID27165153
PMCPMC4862082
OpenAlexW2361797231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.