Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35680885›Full record

ArticleNature communications2022

Comparison of methods and resources for cell-cell communication inference from single-cell RNA-Seq data.

Daniel Dimitrov, Dénes Türei, Martin Garrido-Rodriguez, Paul L Burmedi, James S Nagai, Charlotte Boys, Ricardo O Ramirez Flores, Hyojin Kim, Bence Szalai, Ivan G Costa and 3 more

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 420 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
420citing 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

420 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

360 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

13 authors.

Daniel DimitrovHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Institute for Computational Biomedicine, BioQuant, Heidelberg, Germany.
Dénes TüreiHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Institute for Computational Biomedicine, BioQuant, Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin Garrido-RodriguezHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Institute for Computational Biomedicine, BioQuant, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4125-5643
Paul L BurmediHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Institute for Computational Biomedicine, BioQuant, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8391-0031
James S NagaiInstitute for Computational Genomics, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 52074, Germany.
Charlotte BoysHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Institute for Computational Biomedicine, BioQuant, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ricardo O Ramirez FloresHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Institute for Computational Biomedicine, BioQuant, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0087-371X
Hyojin KimHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Institute for Computational Biomedicine, BioQuant, Heidelberg, Germany.
Bence SzalaiFaculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Ivan G CostaInstitute for Computational Genomics, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 52074, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2890-8697
Alberto Valdeolivas *Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Roche Innovation Center Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5482-9023
Aurélien Dugourd *Heidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Institute for Computational Biomedicine, BioQuant, Heidelberg, Germany.
Julio Saez-RodriguezHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Institute for Computational Biomedicine, BioQuant, Heidelberg, Germany. pub.saez@uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID 0000-0002-8552-8976

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing availability of single-cell data, especially transcriptomics, has sparked an increased interest in the inference of cell-cell communication. Many computational tools were developed for this purpose. Each of them consists of a resource of intercellular interactions prior knowledge and a method to predict potential cell-cell communication events. Yet the impact of the choice of resource and method on the resulting predictions is largely unknown. To shed light on this, we systematically compare 16 cell-cell communication inference resources and 7 methods, plus the consensus between the methods' predictions. Among the resources, we find few unique interactions, a varying degree of overlap, and an uneven coverage of specific pathways and tissue-enriched proteins. We then examine all possible combinations of methods and resources and show that both strongly influence the predicted intercellular interactions. Finally, we assess the agreement of cell-cell communication methods with spatial colocalisation, cytokine activities, and receptor protein abundance and find that predictions are generally coherent with those data modalities. To facilitate the use of the methods and resources described in this work, we provide LIANA, a LIgand-receptor ANalysis frAmework as an open-source interface to all the resources and methods.

Indexed as

Cell CommunicationTranscriptomeLigandsRNA-SeqSignal TransductionSingle-Cell AnalysisLigands

Identifiers

PMID35680885
PMCPMC9184522

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.