Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32435978›Full record

ReviewProtein & cell2020

New avenues for systematically inferring cell-cell communication: through single-cell transcriptomics data.

Xin Shao, Xiaoyan Lu, Jie Liao, Huajun Chen, Xiaohui Fan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Protein & cell, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing 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

95 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Xin ShaoCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.
Xiaoyan LuCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.
Jie LiaoCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.
Huajun ChenCollege of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, China.
Xiaohui FanCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China. fanxh@zju.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-6336-3007

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For multicellular organisms, cell-cell communication is essential to numerous biological processes. Drawing upon the latest development of single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq), high-resolution transcriptomic data have deepened our understanding of cellular phenotype heterogeneity and composition of complex tissues, which enables systematic cell-cell communication studies at a single-cell level. We first summarize a common workflow of cell-cell communication study using scRNA-seq data, which often includes data preparation, construction of communication networks, and result validation. Two common strategies taken to uncover cell-cell communications are reviewed, e.g., physically vicinal structure-based and ligand-receptor interaction-based one. To conclude, challenges and current applications of cell-cell communication studies at a single-cell resolution are discussed in details and future perspectives are proposed.

Indexed as

Cell CommunicationRNA-SeqSingle-Cell AnalysisTranscriptomeAnimalsHumanscell-cell communicationchemical signal-dependent communicationligand-receptor interactionnetwork biologyphysical contact-dependent communicationsingle-cell RNA sequencing

Identifiers

PMID32435978
PMCPMC7719148

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.