Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38711017›Full record

ReviewBMC genomics2024

Data normalization for addressing the challenges in the analysis of single-cell transcriptomic datasets.

Raquel Cuevas-Diaz Duran, Haichao Wei, Jiaqian Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Single-cell analysis ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Integration of Bulk and Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Analyses in Biomedicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Pathway Analysis Interpretation in the Multi-Omic Era.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

3 authors.

Raquel Cuevas-Diaz Duran *Tecnologico de Monterrey, Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, 64710, Mexico. raquel.cuevas.dd@tec.mx.
Haichao Wei *The Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Jiaqian WuThe Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. jiaqian.wu@uth.tmc.edu.

Funding

Identifying Novel Molecular Targets for Chronic SCIR01NS088353 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI JIaqian Wu-Huber · 2015 to 2026
$4.0M
Delineating the Heterogeneity of Reactive Astrocytes in Spinal Cord InjuryR21NS113068 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI WU-HUBER, JIAQIAN · 2020 to 2020
$428k
NIH HHS R01 NS088353NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS088353NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS113068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNormalization is a critical step in the analysis of single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) datasets. Its main goal is to make gene counts comparable within and between cells. To do so, normalization methods must account for technical and biological variability. Numerous normalization methods have been developed addressing different sources of dispersion and making specific assumptions about the count data. MAIN BODY: The selection of a normalization method has a direct impact on downstream analysis, for example differential gene expression and cluster identification. Thus, the objective of this review is to guide the reader in making an informed decision on the most appropriate normalization method to use. To this aim, we first give an overview of the different single cell sequencing platforms and methods commonly used including isolation and library preparation protocols. Next, we discuss the inherent sources of variability of scRNA-seq datasets. We describe the categories of normalization methods and include examples of each. We also delineate imputation and batch-effect correction methods. Furthermore, we describe data-driven metrics commonly used to evaluate the performance of normalization methods. We also discuss common scRNA-seq methods and toolkits used for integrated data analysis.

conclusionsAccording to the correction performed, normalization methods can be broadly classified as within and between-sample algorithms. Moreover, with respect to the mathematical model used, normalization methods can further be classified into: global scaling methods, generalized linear models, mixed methods, and machine learning-based methods. Each of these methods depict pros and cons and make different statistical assumptions. However, there is no better performing normalization method. Instead, metrics such as silhouette width, K-nearest neighbor batch-effect test, or Highly Variable Genes are recommended to assess the performance of normalization methods.

Indexed as

Single-Cell AnalysisAlgorithmsAnimalsDatasets as TopicGene Expression ProfilingHumansRNA-SeqSequence Analysis, RNATranscriptomeBiological variabilityNormalizationscRNA-seqSingle-cell sequencingTechnical variability

Identifiers

PMID38711017
PMCPMC11073985

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.