ArticleGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2024
Benchmarking Algorithms for Gene Set Scoring of Single-cell ATAC-seq Data.
Article in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 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.
- Multi-task spatial distillation reveals cell-type-resolved programmed cell death landscapes in the human kidney.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- scATAnno: Automated Cell Type Annotation for Single-cell ATAC-seq Data.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2026Article
- FUNCellA: A Tool for Single-Sample Enrichment Analysis and Relative Pathway Activity Estimation in Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Computational Analyses and Challenges of Single-cell ATAC-seq.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2025Review
- scATAC-seq preprocessing and imputation evaluation system for visualization, clustering and digital footprinting.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene set scoring (GSS) has been routinely conducted for gene expression analysis of bulk or single-cell RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data, which helps to decipher single-cell heterogeneity and cell type-specific variability by incorporating prior knowledge from functional gene sets. Single-cell assay for transposase accessible chromatin using sequencing (scATAC-seq) is a powerful technique for interrogating single-cell chromatin-based gene regulation, and genes or gene sets with dynamic regulatory potentials can be regarded as cell type-specific markers as if in single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq). However, there are few GSS tools specifically designed for scATAC-seq, and the applicability and performance of RNA-seq GSS tools on scATAC-seq data remain to be investigated. Here, we systematically benchmarked ten GSS tools, including four bulk RNA-seq tools, five scRNA-seq tools, and one scATAC-seq method. First, using matched scATAC-seq and scRNA-seq datasets, we found that the performance of GSS tools on scATAC-seq data was comparable to that on scRNA-seq, suggesting their applicability to scATAC-seq. Then, the performance of different GSS tools was extensively evaluated using up to ten scATAC-seq datasets. Moreover, we evaluated the impact of gene activity conversion, dropout imputation, and gene set collections on the results of GSS. Results show that dropout imputation can significantly promote the performance of almost all GSS tools, while the impact of gene activity conversion methods or gene set collections on GSS performance is more dependent on GSS tools or datasets. Finally, we provided practical guidelines for choosing appropriate preprocessing methods and GSS tools in different application scenarios.
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.