ArticleCytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology2020
Learning Pathway Dynamics from Single-Cell Proteomic Data: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative multi-omics and systems bioinformatics in translational neuroscience: A data mining perspective.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2023Review
- ANPELA: Significantly Enhanced Quantification Tool for Cytometry-Based Single-Cell Proteomics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-cell platforms provide statistically large samples of snapshot observations capable of resolving intrercellular heterogeneity. Currently, there is a growing literature on algorithms that exploit this attribute in order to infer the trajectory of biological mechanisms, such as cell proliferation and differentiation. Despite the efforts, the trajectory inference methodology has not yet been used for addressing the challenging problem of learning the dynamics of protein signaling systems. In this work, we assess this prospect by testing the performance of this class of algorithms on four proteomic temporal datasets. To evaluate the learning quality, we design new general-purpose evaluation metrics that are able to quantify performance on (i) the biological meaning of the output, (ii) the consistency of the inferred trajectory, (iii) the algorithm robustness, (iv) the correlation of the learning output with the initial dataset, and (v) the roughness of the cell parameter levels though the inferred trajectory. We show that experimental time alone is insufficient to provide knowledge about the order of proteins during signal transduction. Accordingly, we show that the inferred trajectories provide richer information about the underlying dynamics. We learn that established methods tested on high-dimensional data with small sample size, slow dynamics, and complex structures (e.g. bifurcations) cannot always work in the signaling setting. Among the methods we evaluate, Scorpius and a newly introduced approach that combines Diffusion Maps and Principal Curves were found to perform adequately in recovering the progression of signal transduction although their performance on some metrics varies from one dataset to another. The novel metrics we devise highlight that it is difficult to conclude, which one method is universally applicable for the task. Arguably, there are still many challenges and open problems to resolve. © 2020 The Authors. Cytometry Part A published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.