Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37827697›Full record

ArticleGenome research2023

ESICCC as a systematic computational framework for evaluation, selection, and integration of cell-cell communication inference methods.

Jiaxin Luo, Minghua Deng, Xuegong Zhang, Xiaoqiang Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing 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

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Integrative Analysis Coupled with In Vitro Validation RevealsInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Jiaxin LuoZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
Minghua DengSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9143-1898
Xuegong ZhangBioinformatics Division of BNRIST and Department of Automation, MOE Key Lab of Bioinformatics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China.
Xiaoqiang SunSchool of Mathematics, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China; sunxq6@mail.sysu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-cell communication (CCC) is critical for determining cell fates and functions in multicellular organisms. With the advent of single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) and spatial transcriptomics (ST), an increasing number of CCC inference methods have been developed. Nevertheless, a thorough comparison of their performances is yet to be conducted. To fill this gap, we developed a systematic benchmark framework called ESICCC to evaluate 18 ligand-receptor (LR) inference methods and five ligand/receptor-target inference methods using a total of 116 data sets, including 15 ST data sets, 15 sets of cell line perturbation data, two sets of cell type-specific expression/proteomics data, and 84 sets of sampled or unsampled scRNA-seq data. We evaluated and compared the agreement, accuracy, robustness, and usability of these methods. Regarding accuracy evaluation, RNAMagnet, CellChat, and scSeqComm emerge as the three best-performing methods for intercellular ligand-receptor inference based on scRNA-seq data, whereas stMLnet and HoloNet are the best methods for predicting ligand/receptor-target regulation using ST data. To facilitate the practical applications, we provide a decision-tree-style guideline for users to easily choose best tools for their specific research concerns in CCC inference, and develop an ensemble pipeline CCCbank that enables versatile combinations of methods and databases. Moreover, our comparative results also uncover several critical influential factors for CCC inference, such as prior interaction information, ligand-receptor scoring algorithm, intracellular signaling complexity, and spatial relationship, which may be considered in the future studies to advance the development of new methodologies.

Indexed as

Single-Cell AnalysisSoftwareAlgorithmsCell CommunicationLigandsSequence Analysis, RNALigands

Identifiers

PMID37827697
PMCPMC10691505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.