ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2021
Compression of quantification uncertainty for scRNA-seq counts.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Viral load dependent cellular heterogeneity in Trichomonas vaginalis at the single cell level.iScience · 2026Article
- Design specifications for biomedical virtual twins in engineered adoptive cellular immunotherapies.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Comprehensive analysis of genetic associations and single-cell expression profiles reveals potential links between migraine and multiple diseases: a phenome-wide association study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
motivationQuantification estimates of gene expression from single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) data have inherent uncertainty due to reads that map to multiple genes. Many existing scRNA-seq quantification pipelines ignore multi-mapping reads and therefore underestimate expected read counts for many genes. alevin accounts for multi-mapping reads and allows for the generation of 'inferential replicates', which reflect quantification uncertainty. Previous methods have shown improved performance when incorporating these replicates into statistical analyses, but storage and use of these replicates increases computation time and memory requirements.
resultsWe demonstrate that storing only the mean and variance from a set of inferential replicates ('compression') is sufficient to capture gene-level quantification uncertainty, while reducing disk storage to as low as 9% of original storage, and memory usage when loading data to as low as 6%. Using these values, we generate 'pseudo-inferential' replicates from a negative binomial distribution and propose a general procedure for incorporating these replicates into a proposed statistical testing framework. When applying this procedure to trajectory-based differential expression analyses, we show false positives are reduced by more than a third for genes with high levels of quantification uncertainty. We additionally extend the Swish method to incorporate pseudo-inferential replicates and demonstrate improvements in computation time and memory usage without any loss in performance. Lastly, we show that discarding multi-mapping reads can result in significant underestimation of counts for functionally important genes in a real dataset. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: makeInfReps and splitSwish are implemented in the R/Bioconductor fishpond package available at https://bioconductor.org/packages/fishpond. Analyses and simulated datasets can be found in the paper's GitHub repo at https://github.com/skvanburen/scUncertaintyPaperCode. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.