Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38867267›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2024

Gene count normalization in single-cell imaging-based spatially resolved transcriptomics.

Lyla Atta, Kalen Clifton, Manjari Anant, Gohta Aihara, Jean Fan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Advances in Spatial Transcriptomics in Bone.Current osteoporosis reports · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Cancer therapy resistance from a spatial-omics perspective.Clinical and translational medicine · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lyla AttaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Kalen CliftonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Manjari AnantCenter for Computational Biology, Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21211, USA.
Gohta AiharaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Jean FanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA. jeanfan@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0212-5451

Funding

Computational methods for delineating subcellular and cellular spatial transcriptional heterogeneity along developmental trajectoriesR35GM142889 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FAN, JEAN · 2021 to 2025
$2.0M
Division of Biological Infrastructure 2047611NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM142889NIGMS NIH HHS R35-GM142889
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in imaging-based spatially resolved transcriptomics (im-SRT) technologies now enable high-throughput profiling of targeted genes and their locations in fixed tissues. Normalization of gene expression data is often needed to account for technical factors that may confound underlying biological signals.

resultsHere, we investigate the potential impact of different gene count normalization methods with different targeted gene panels in the analysis and interpretation of im-SRT data. Using different simulated gene panels that overrepresent genes expressed in specific tissue regions or cell types, we demonstrate how normalization methods based on detected gene counts per cell differentially impact normalized gene expression magnitudes in a region- or cell type-specific manner. We show that these normalization-induced effects may reduce the reliability of downstream analyses including differential gene expression, gene fold change, and spatially variable gene analysis, introducing false positive and false negative results when compared to results obtained from gene panels that are more representative of the gene expression of the tissue's component cell types. These effects are not observed with normalization approaches that do not use detected gene counts for gene expression magnitude adjustment, such as with cell volume or cell area normalization.

conclusionsWe recommend using non-gene count-based normalization approaches when feasible and evaluating gene panel representativeness before using gene count-based normalization methods if necessary. Overall, we caution that the choice of normalization method and gene panel may impact the biological interpretation of the im-SRT data.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingSingle-Cell AnalysisAnimalsHumansTranscriptomeDifferential expressionNormalizationScaling factorSpatial transcriptomics

Identifiers

PMID38867267
PMCPMC11167774

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.