Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35292647›Full record

ArticleNature communications2022

Comprehensive evaluation of deconvolution methods for human brain gene expression.

Gavin J Sutton, Daniel Poppe, Rebecca K Simmons, Kieran Walsh, Urwah Nawaz, Ryan Lister, Johann A Gagnon-Bartsch, Irina Voineagu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing 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

88 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Artificial Intelligence Revolution in Transcriptomics: From Single Cells to Spatial Atlases.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 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

8 authors.

Gavin J SuttonSchool of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Daniel PoppeHarry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, QEII Medical Centre and Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Rebecca K SimmonsHarry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, QEII Medical Centre and Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Kieran WalshSchool of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Urwah NawazAdelaide Medical School, Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Ryan ListerHarry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, QEII Medical Centre and Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6637-7239
Johann A Gagnon-BartschDepartment of Statistics, University of Michigan, 1085 South University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Irina VoineaguSchool of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. i.voineagu@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4162-3872

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcriptome deconvolution aims to estimate the cellular composition of an RNA sample from its gene expression data, which in turn can be used to correct for composition differences across samples. The human brain is unique in its transcriptomic diversity, and comprises a complex mixture of cell-types, including transcriptionally similar subtypes of neurons. Here, we carry out a comprehensive evaluation of deconvolution methods for human brain transcriptome data, and assess the tissue-specificity of our key observations by comparison with human pancreas and heart. We evaluate eight transcriptome deconvolution approaches and nine cell-type signatures, testing the accuracy of deconvolution using in silico mixtures of single-cell RNA-seq data, RNA mixtures, as well as nearly 2000 human brain samples. Our results identify the main factors that drive deconvolution accuracy for brain data, and highlight the importance of biological factors influencing cell-type signatures, such as brain region and in vitro cell culturing.

Indexed as

RNATranscriptomeBrainGene Expression ProfilingHumansOrgan SpecificitySequence Analysis, RNARNA

Identifiers

PMID35292647
PMCPMC8924248

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.