ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2024
From G1 to M: a comparative study of methods for identifying cell cycle phases.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-nucleus transcriptomic atlas of postnatal camel liver development identifies candidate adaptive features.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- CycleVI: isolating cell cycle variation with an interpretable deep generative model.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Single-cell transcriptomics of X-ray irradiatedeLife · 2026Article
- Computational decoding of cell-cycle phase effects on cancer hallmarks across breast cancer subtypes.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Comprehensive bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing uncovers senescence-associated biomarkers in therapeutic mesenchymal stem cells.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A deep single cell mass cytometry approach to capture canonical and noncanonical cell cycle states.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Identification of malignant cells in single-cell transcriptomics data.Communications biology · 2025Review
- Predicting cell cycle stage from 3D single-cell nuclear-stained images.Life science alliance · 2025Article
- Telomemore enables single-cell analysis of cell cycle and chromatin condensation.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Article
- Current advances in cancer immunohistochemistry: a new perspective for the Ki-67 biomarker.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Review
- Transcription factor networks in cellular quiescence.Nature cell biology · 2025Review
- Design, synthesis, and antiproliferative screening of new quinoline derivatives bearing aRSC advances · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate identification of cell cycle phases in single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) data is crucial for biomedical research. Many methods have been developed to tackle this challenge, employing diverse approaches to predict cell cycle phases. In this review article, we delve into the standard processes in identifying cell cycle phases within scRNA-seq data and present several representative methods for comparison. To rigorously assess the accuracy of these methods, we propose an error function and employ multiple benchmarking datasets encompassing human and mouse data. Our evaluation results reveal a key finding: the fit between the reference data and the dataset being analyzed profoundly impacts the effectiveness of cell cycle phase identification methods. Therefore, researchers must carefully consider the compatibility between the reference data and their dataset to achieve optimal results. Furthermore, we explore the potential benefits of incorporating benchmarking data with multiple known cell cycle phases into the analysis. Merging such data with the target dataset shows promise in enhancing prediction accuracy. By shedding light on the accuracy and performance of cell cycle phase prediction methods across diverse datasets, this review aims to motivate and guide future methodological advancements. Our findings offer valuable insights for researchers seeking to improve their understanding of cellular dynamics through scRNA-seq analysis, ultimately fostering the development of more robust and widely applicable cell cycle identification methods.
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.