ArticleGenome biology2024
Systematic evaluation with practical guidelines for single-cell and spatially resolved transcriptomics data simulation under multiple scenarios.
Article in Genome biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating imputation methods for accurate estimation of cell population fractions in single-cell RNA sequencing.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Single-cell differential abundance detection: A new angle on dissecting tumor heterogeneity.World journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Multi-Scale Transcriptomics Redefining the Tumor Immune Microenvironment.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Review
- Unlocking biological insights from differentially expressed genes: Concepts, methods, and future perspectives.Journal of advanced research · 2025Review
- Systematic evaluation with practical guidelines for single-cell and spatially resolved transcriptomics data simulation under multiple scenarios.Genome biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSingle-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and spatially resolved transcriptomics (SRT) have led to groundbreaking advancements in life sciences. To develop bioinformatics tools for scRNA-seq and SRT data and perform unbiased benchmarks, data simulation has been widely adopted by providing explicit ground truth and generating customized datasets. However, the performance of simulation methods under multiple scenarios has not been comprehensively assessed, making it challenging to choose suitable methods without practical guidelines.
resultsWe systematically evaluated 49 simulation methods developed for scRNA-seq and/or SRT data in terms of accuracy, functionality, scalability, and usability using 152 reference datasets derived from 24 platforms. SRTsim, scDesign3, ZINB-WaVE, and scDesign2 have the best accuracy performance across various platforms. Unexpectedly, some methods tailored to scRNA-seq data have potential compatibility for simulating SRT data. Lun, SPARSim, and scDesign3-tree outperform other methods under corresponding simulation scenarios. Phenopath, Lun, Simple, and MFA yield high scalability scores but they cannot generate realistic simulated data. Users should consider the trade-offs between method accuracy and scalability (or functionality) when making decisions. Additionally, execution errors are mainly caused by failed parameter estimations and appearance of missing or infinite values in calculations. We provide practical guidelines for method selection, a standard pipeline Simpipe ( https://github.com/duohongrui/simpipe ; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11178409 ), and an online tool Simsite ( https://www.ciblab.net/software/simshiny/ ) for data simulation.
conclusionsNo method performs best on all criteria, thus a good-yet-not-the-best method is recommended if it solves problems effectively and reasonably. Our comprehensive work provides crucial insights for developers on modeling gene expression data and fosters the simulation process for users.
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.