Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38049697›Full record

ArticleNature methods2024

Modeling fragment counts improves single-cell ATAC-seq analysis.

Laura D Martens, David S Fischer, Vicente A Yépez, Fabian J Theis, Julien Gagneur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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

52 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. What-if effects: A tale of entangled covariates.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. ModelingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

5 authors.

Laura D MartensSchool of Computation, Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Garching, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6520-4029
David S FischerComputational Health Center, Helmholtz Center Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1293-7656
Vicente A YépezSchool of Computation, Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Garching, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7916-3643
Fabian J TheisSchool of Computation, Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Garching, Germany. fabian.theis@helmholtz-munich.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2419-1943
Julien GagneurSchool of Computation, Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Garching, Germany. gagneur@in.tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8924-8365

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) TRR267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single-cell ATAC sequencing coverage in regulatory regions is typically binarized as an indicator of open chromatin. Here we show that binarization is an unnecessary step that neither improves goodness of fit, clustering, cell type identification nor batch integration. Fragment counts, but not read counts, should instead be modeled, which preserves quantitative regulatory information. These results have immediate implications for single-cell ATAC sequencing analysis.

Indexed as

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation SequencingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingChromatinSequence Analysis, DNASingle-Cell AnalysisChromatin

Identifiers

PMID38049697
PMCPMC10776385

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.