Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33003193›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2021

A review of digital cytometry methods: estimating the relative abundance of cell types in a bulk of cells.

Trang Le, Rachel A Aronow, Arkadz Kirshtein, Leili Shahriyari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing 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

74 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. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 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

4 authors.

Trang LeUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst.
Rachel A AronowDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Arkadz KirshteinDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Leili ShahriyariUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst.

Funding

Data-driven QSP software for personalized colon cancer treatmentR21CA242933 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST · PI PAL, SUVRA, ROY, SOUVIK · 2019 to 2020
$547k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA242933
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the high cost of flow and mass cytometry, there has been a recent surge in the development of computational methods for estimating the relative distributions of cell types from the gene expression profile of a bulk of cells. Here, we review the five common 'digital cytometry' methods: deconvolution of RNA-Seq, cell-type identification by estimating relative subsets of RNA transcripts (CIBERSORT), CIBERSORTx, single sample gene set enrichment analysis and single-sample scoring of molecular phenotypes deconvolution method. The results show that CIBERSORTx B-mode, which uses batch correction to adjust the gene expression profile of the bulk of cells ('mixture data') to eliminate possible cross-platform variations between the mixture data and the gene expression data of single cells ('signature matrix'), outperforms other methods, especially when signature matrix and mixture data come from different platforms. However, in our tests, CIBERSORTx S-mode, which uses batch correction for adjusting the signature matrix instead of mixture data, did not perform better than the original CIBERSORT method, which does not use any batch correction method. This result suggests the need for further investigations into how to utilize batch correction in deconvolution methods.

Indexed as

CytophotometryRNA-SeqTranscriptomeAnimalsHumansCIBERSORTDeconRNASeqdeconvolution methodsdigital cytometrySingScoressGSEA

Identifiers

PMID33003193
PMCPMC8293826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.