Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33359678›Full record

ArticleGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2021

Evaluation of Cell Type Annotation R Packages on Single-cell RNA-seq Data.

Qianhui Huang, Yu Liu, Yuheng Du, Lana X Garmire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing 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

87 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Evaluating the Utilities of Foundation Models in Single-Cell Data Analysis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 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.

Qianhui HuangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Yu LiuDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA.
Yuheng DuDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Lana X GarmireDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA. Electronic address: lgarmire@med.umich.edu.

Funding

Proteogenomics of Cancer Training ProgramT32CA140044 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI RAO, ARVIND, SARTOR, MAUREEN AGNES · 2010 to 2024
$3.9M
An Integrative Omics Approach to Identify Biomarkers Related to Preeclampsia and Breast Cancer RisksR01HD084633 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GARMIRE, LANA X · 2016 to 2020
$3.0M
Cancer precision medicine through spatially informative single cell image and transcriptomics data analysisR01LM012373 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GARMIRE, LANA X · 2016 to 2024
$2.4M
DR. EPS: Drug Repurposing for Extended Patient SurvivalR01LM012907 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GARMIRE, LANA X · 2019 to 2022
$1.0M
An Integrative Bioinformatics Approach to Study Single Cancer Cell HeterogeneityK01ES025434 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GARMIRE, LANA X · 2014 to 2018
$905k
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA140044NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD084633NIEHS NIH HHS K01 ES025434NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012373NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012907
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Annotating cell types is a critical step in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data analysis. Some supervised or semi-supervised classification methods have recently emerged to enable automated cell type identification. However, comprehensive evaluations of these methods are lacking. Moreover, it is not clear whether some classification methods originally designed for analyzing other bulk omics data are adaptable to scRNA-seq analysis. In this study, we evaluated ten cell type annotation methods publicly available as R packages. Eight of them are popular methods developed specifically for single-cell research, including Seurat, scmap, SingleR, CHETAH, SingleCellNet, scID, Garnett, and SCINA. The other two methods were repurposed from deconvoluting DNA methylation data, i.e., linear constrained projection (CP) and robust partial correlations (RPC). We conducted systematic comparisons on a wide variety of public scRNA-seq datasets as well as simulation data. We assessed the accuracy through intra-dataset and inter-dataset predictions; the robustness over practical challenges such as gene filtering, high similarity among cell types, and increased cell type classes; as well as the detection of rare and unknown cell types. Overall, methods such as Seurat, SingleR, CP, RPC, and SingleCellNet performed well, with Seurat being the best at annotating major cell types. Additionally, Seurat, SingleR, CP, and RPC were more robust against downsampling. However, Seurat did have a major drawback at predicting rare cell populations, and it was suboptimal at differentiating cell types highly similar to each other, compared to SingleR and RPC. All the code and data are available from https://github.com/qianhuiSenn/scRNA_cell_deconv_benchmark.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingSingle-Cell AnalysisComputer SimulationExome SequencingRNA-SeqSequence Analysis, RNASoftwareAnnotationBenchmarkCell typeClassificationscRNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID33359678
PMCPMC8602772

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.