ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
The impact of package selection and versioning on single-cell RNA-seq analysis.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- E2F5 Overexpression in Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Associations With Neutrophil Extracellular Traps in the Tumor Microenvironment.World journal of oncology · 2026Article
- Building a continuous benchmarking ecosystem in bioinformatics.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Tumor heterogeneity assessment using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq): applications in lung cancer for diagnosis and treatment.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Standard single-cell RNA-sequencing analysis (scRNA-seq) workflows consist of converting raw read data into cell-gene count matrices through sequence alignment, followed by analyses including filtering, highly variable gene selection, dimensionality reduction, clustering, and differential expression analysis. Seurat and Scanpy are the most widely-used packages implementing such workflows, and are generally thought to implement individual steps similarly. We investigate in detail the algorithms and methods underlying Seurat and Scanpy and find that there are, in fact, considerable differences in the outputs of Seurat and Scanpy. The extent of differences between the programs is approximately equivalent to the variability that would be introduced in benchmarking scRNA-seq datasets by sequencing less than 5% of the reads or analyzing less than 20% of the cell population. Additionally, distinct versions of Seurat and Scanpy can produce very different results, especially during parts of differential expression analysis. Our analysis highlights the need for users of scRNA-seq to carefully assess the tools on which they rely, and the importance of developers of scientific software to prioritize transparency, consistency, and reproducibility for their tools.
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.