Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34488842›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2021

Analytic Pearson residuals for normalization of single-cell RNA-seq UMI data.

Jan Lause, Philipp Berens, Dmitry Kobak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 121 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
121citing 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

121 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Human memory CD4bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Decoding Human Placental Cellular and Molecular Responses to Obesity and Fetal Growth.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

61 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

3 authors.

Jan LauseUniversity of Tübingen, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Tübingen, Germany.
Philipp BerensUniversity of Tübingen, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Tübingen, Germany.
Dmitry KobakUniversity of Tübingen, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Tübingen, Germany. dmitry.kobak@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-5639-7209

Funding

Generation of novel cell type specific mouse genetic toolsU19MH114830 · NIMH · ALLEN INSTITUTE · PI ANDERSON, DAVID J, PACHTER, LIOR S · 2017 to 2021
$64.7M
NIMH NIH HHS U19 MH114830
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandard preprocessing of single-cell RNA-seq UMI data includes normalization by sequencing depth to remove this technical variability, and nonlinear transformation to stabilize the variance across genes with different expression levels. Instead, two recent papers propose to use statistical count models for these tasks: Hafemeister and Satija (Genome Biol 20:296, 2019) recommend using Pearson residuals from negative binomial regression, while Townes et al. (Genome Biol 20:295, 2019) recommend fitting a generalized PCA model. Here, we investigate the connection between these approaches theoretically and empirically, and compare their effects on downstream processing.

resultsWe show that the model of Hafemeister and Satija produces noisy parameter estimates because it is overspecified, which is why the original paper employs post hoc smoothing. When specified more parsimoniously, it has a simple analytic solution equivalent to the rank-one Poisson GLM-PCA of Townes et al. Further, our analysis indicates that per-gene overdispersion estimates in Hafemeister and Satija are biased, and that the data are in fact consistent with the overdispersion parameter being independent of gene expression. We then use negative control data without biological variability to estimate the technical overdispersion of UMI counts, and find that across several different experimental protocols, the data are close to Poisson and suggest very moderate overdispersion. Finally, we perform a benchmark to compare the performance of Pearson residuals, variance-stabilizing transformations, and GLM-PCA on scRNA-seq datasets with known ground truth.

conclusionsWe demonstrate that analytic Pearson residuals strongly outperform other methods for identifying biologically variable genes, and capture more of the biologically meaningful variation when used for dimensionality reduction.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, GeneticRNA-SeqSequence Analysis, RNAOrganogenesisPrincipal Component AnalysisRegression AnalysisRetina

Identifiers

PMID34488842
PMCPMC8419999

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.