ArticleGenome biology2023
A benchmark of computational pipelines for single-cell histone modification data.
Article in Genome biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decoding epithelial-mesenchymal transitions with multi-omics.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Decoding drug-responsive cell subpopulations in triple-negative breast cancer using single-cell multiomics.iScience · 2026Article
- Histone Modifications in Cardiovascular Disease: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Opportunities.MedComm · 2026Review
- Unraveling the complexity of the histone code: implications for gene regulation and disease.Genome biology · 2026Review
- A hitchhiker's guide to single-cell epigenomics: Methods and applications for cancer research.International journal of cancer · 2026Review
- Advances in scCUT&Tag and computational analysis for single-cell gene regulatory element mapping.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- A computational framework to dissect imputation strategies for single-cell histone modification data.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Review
- IDclust: Iterative clustering for unsupervised identification of cell types with single cell transcriptomics and epigenomics.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Single-Cell Sequencing: High-Resolution Analysis of Cellular Heterogeneity in Autoimmune Diseases.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2024Review
- Challenges and best practices in omics benchmarking.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2024Review
- A benchmark of computational pipelines for single-cell histone modification data.Genome biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-cell histone post translational modification (scHPTM) assays such as scCUT&Tag or scChIP-seq allow single-cell mapping of diverse epigenomic landscapes within complex tissues and are likely to unlock our understanding of various mechanisms involved in development or diseases. Running scHTPM experiments and analyzing the data produced remains challenging since few consensus guidelines currently exist regarding good practices for experimental design and data analysis pipelines.
resultsWe perform a computational benchmark to assess the impact of experimental parameters and data analysis pipelines on the ability of the cell representation to recapitulate known biological similarities. We run more than ten thousand experiments to systematically study the impact of coverage and number of cells, of the count matrix construction method, of feature selection and normalization, and of the dimension reduction algorithm used. This allows us to identify key experimental parameters and computational choices to obtain a good representation of single-cell HPTM data. We show in particular that the count matrix construction step has a strong influence on the quality of the representation and that using fixed-size bin counts outperforms annotation-based binning. Dimension reduction methods based on latent semantic indexing outperform others, and feature selection is detrimental, while keeping only high-quality cells has little influence on the final representation as long as enough cells are analyzed.
conclusionsThis benchmark provides a comprehensive study on how experimental parameters and computational choices affect the representation of single-cell HPTM data. We propose a series of recommendations regarding matrix construction, feature and cell selection, and dimensionality reduction algorithms.
Indexed as
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.