ArticleGenome biology2024
Gene count normalization in single-cell imaging-based spatially resolved transcriptomics.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- ResolVI: addressing noise and bias in spatial transcriptomics.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Computational analysis in spatial transcriptomics: methods and perspectives.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Spatio-molecular gene expression reflects dorsal anterior cingulate cortex structure and function in the human brain.Cell reports · 2026Article
- Spatial transcriptomics reveals influence of microenvironment on intrinsic fates in melanoma therapy resistance.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Spatial multiomics dissects the SARS-CoV-2-induced disruption of cell adhesion and immune dynamics in the human hippocampus.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2026Article
- Translating spatial transcriptomic signatures in adenosquamous carcinoma into bulk prognostic biomarkers in lung adenocarcinoma: a bottom-up approach.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- SpaceBF: spatial coexpression analysis using Bayesian fused approaches in spatial omics datasets.GigaScience · 2026Article
- Advances in Spatial Transcriptomics in Bone.Current osteoporosis reports · 2026Review
- Spatial transcriptomics in Alzheimer's disease: technologies, challenges and discoveries.Molecular neurodegeneration advances · 2026Review
- A Transcriptional Map of Human Tonsil Architecture: Beyond the Sum of (Single Cell) Parts.European journal of immunology · 2026Article
- Spatial Transcriptomics of Adipose Tissue: Technologies, Applications, and Challenges.Journal of obesity & metabolic syndrome · 2025Review
- Cancer therapy resistance from a spatial-omics perspective.Clinical and translational medicine · 2025Review
- Integrating Spatially-Resolved Transcriptomics Data Across Tissues and Individuals: Challenges and Opportunities.Small methods · 2025Review
- SpaNorm: spatially-aware normalization for spatial transcriptomics data.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Next-generation spatial transcriptomics: unleashing the power to gear up translational oncology.MedComm · 2024Review
- Scoping Review: Methods and Applications of Spatial Transcriptomics in Tumor Research.Cancers · 2024Article
- Article
- Spatial transcriptomics reveals influence of microenvironment on intrinsic fates in melanoma therapy resistance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Library size confounds biology in spatial transcriptomics data.Genome biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.