Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32027371›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2020

CellCoal: Coalescent Simulation of Single-Cell Sequencing Samples.

David Posada

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Testing for Phylogenetic Signal in Single-Cell RNA-Seq Data.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Discrete coalescent trees.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021
    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

1 author.

David PosadaDepartment of Biochemistry, Genetics and Immunology, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain.

Funding

European Research Council 617457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our capacity to study individual cells has enabled a new level of resolution for understanding complex biological systems such as multicellular organisms or microbial communities. Not surprisingly, several methods have been developed in recent years with a formidable potential to investigate the somatic evolution of single cells in both healthy and pathological tissues. However, single-cell sequencing data can be quite noisy due to different technical biases, so inferences resulting from these new methods need to be carefully contrasted. Here, I introduce CellCoal, a software tool for the coalescent simulation of single-cell sequencing genotypes. CellCoal simulates the history of single-cell samples obtained from somatic cell populations with different demographic histories and produces single-nucleotide variants under a variety of mutation models, sequencing read counts, and genotype likelihoods, considering allelic imbalance, allelic dropout, amplification, and sequencing errors, typical of this type of data. CellCoal is a flexible tool that can be used to understand the implications of different somatic evolutionary processes at the single-cell level, and to benchmark dedicated bioinformatic tools for the analysis of single-cell sequencing data. CellCoal is available at https://github.com/dapogon/cellcoal.

Indexed as

Genetic TechniquesGenotypeSingle-Cell AnalysisSoftwareEvolution, MolecularSequence Analysis, DNAallele dropoutamplification errorsingle-cell genomicssomatic evolution

Identifiers

PMID32027371
PMCPMC7182211

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.