Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37287013›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2023

Not every estimate counts - evaluation of cell composition estimation approaches in brain bulk tissue data.

Lilah Toker, Gonzalo S Nido, Charalampos Tzoulis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Cardiac epigenome in heart development and disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lilah TokerNeuro-SysMed Center of Excellence, Department of Neurology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, University of Bergen, 5021, Bergen, Norway.
Gonzalo S NidoNeuro-SysMed Center of Excellence, Department of Neurology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, University of Bergen, 5021, Bergen, Norway.
Charalampos TzoulisNeuro-SysMed Center of Excellence, Department of Neurology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, University of Bergen, 5021, Bergen, Norway. charalampos.tzoulis@nevro.uib.no.ORCID 0000-0003-0341-5191
Haukeland University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVariation in cell composition can dramatically impact analyses in bulk tissue samples. A commonly employed approach to mitigate this issue is to adjust statistical models using estimates of cell abundance derived directly from omics data. While an arsenal of estimation methods exists, the applicability of these methods to brain tissue data and whether or not cell estimates can sufficiently account for confounding cellular composition has not been adequately assessed.

methodsWe assessed the correspondence between different estimation methods based on transcriptomic (RNA sequencing, RNA-seq) and epigenomic (DNA methylation and histone acetylation) data from brain tissue samples of 49 individuals. We further evaluated the impact of different estimation approaches on the analysis of H3K27 acetylation chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) data from entorhinal cortex of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and controls.

resultsWe show that even closely adjacent tissue samples from the same Brodmann area vary greatly in their cell composition. Comparison across different estimation methods indicates that while different estimation methods applied to the same data produce highly similar outcomes, there is a surprisingly low concordance between estimates based on different omics data modalities. Alarmingly, we show that cell type estimates may not always sufficiently account for confounding variation in cell composition.

conclusionsOur work indicates that cell composition estimation or direct quantification in one tissue sample should not be used as a proxy to the cellular composition of another tissue sample from the same brain region of an individual-even if the samples are directly adjacent. The highly similar outcomes observed among vastly different estimation methods, highlight the need for brain benchmark datasets and better validation approaches. Finally, unless validated through complementary experiments, the interpretation of analyses outcomes based on data confounded by cell composition should be done with great caution, and ideally avoided all together.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingTranscriptomeBrainDNA MethylationHumansSequence Analysis, RNABrainBulk tissueCell compositionDeconvolutionNeurodegenerationOmics

Identifiers

PMID37287013
PMCPMC10245417
OpenAlexW4379768462

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.