Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32612268›Full record

ArticleNature communications2020

Flexible experimental designs for valid single-cell RNA-sequencing experiments allowing batch effects correction.

Fangda Song, Ga Ming Angus Chan, Yingying Wei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Immune Profiling among Colorectal Cancer Subtypes using Dependent Mixture Models.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2025
    Article
  7. The impact of dropouts in scRNAseq dense neighborhood analysis.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

3 authors.

Fangda SongDepartment of Statistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6007-3517
Ga Ming Angus ChanDepartment of Statistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yingying WeiDepartment of Statistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. yweicuhk@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3826-336X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite their widespread applications, single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) experiments are still plagued by batch effects and dropout events. Although the completely randomized experimental design has frequently been advocated to control for batch effects, it is rarely implemented in real applications due to time and budget constraints. Here, we mathematically prove that under two more flexible and realistic experimental designs-the reference panel and the chain-type designs-true biological variability can also be separated from batch effects. We develop Batch effects correction with Unknown Subtypes for scRNA-seq data (BUSseq), which is an interpretable Bayesian hierarchical model that closely follows the data-generating mechanism of scRNA-seq experiments. BUSseq can simultaneously correct batch effects, cluster cell types, impute missing data caused by dropout events, and detect differentially expressed genes without requiring a preliminary normalization step. We demonstrate that BUSseq outperforms existing methods with simulated and real data.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingModels, TheoreticalResearch DesignSequence Analysis, RNASingle-Cell Analysis

Identifiers

PMID32612268
PMCPMC7330047

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.