Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40038548›Full record

ReviewNature protocols2025

Unraveling cell-cell communication with NicheNet by inferring active ligands from transcriptomics data.

Chananchida Sang-Aram, Robin Browaeys, Ruth Seurinck, Yvan Saeys

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. APOEScience advances · 2026
    Article
  5. Local and circulating cytotoxic CD4medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Chananchida Sang-AramData Mining and Modelling for Biomedicine, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0922-0822
Robin BrowaeysDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ruth SeurinckData Mining and Modelling for Biomedicine, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium.
Yvan SaeysData Mining and Modelling for Biomedicine, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium. yvan.saeys@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0002-0415-1506

Funding

Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds (Special Research Fund) BOF18-GOA-024Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds (Special Research Fund) BOF21-DOC-105Fondation Leducq Cellular and Molecular Drivers of Acute Aortic DissectionsFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Research Foundation Flanders) SBO S001121N; EOSVlaamse Overheid (Government of Flanders) Flanders AI Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ligand-receptor interactions constitute a fundamental mechanism of cell-cell communication and signaling. NicheNet is a well-established computational tool that infers ligand-receptor interactions that potentially regulate gene expression changes in receiver cell populations. Whereas the original publication delves into the algorithm and validation, this paper describes a best practices workflow cultivated over four years of experience and user feedback. Starting from the input single-cell expression matrix, we describe a 'sender-agnostic' approach that considers ligands from the entire microenvironment and a 'sender-focused' approach that considers ligands only from cell populations of interest. As output, users will obtain a list of prioritized ligands and their potential target genes, along with multiple visualizations. We include further developments made in NicheNet v2, in which we have updated the data sources and implemented a downstream procedure for prioritizing cell type-specific ligand-receptor pairs. Although a standard NicheNet analysis takes <10 min to run, users often invest additional time in making decisions about the approach and parameters that best suit their biological question. This paper serves to aid in this decision-making process by describing the most appropriate workflow for common experimental designs like case-control and cell-differentiation studies. Finally, in addition to the step-by-step description of the code, we also provide wrapper functions that enable the analysis to be run in one line of code, thus tailoring the workflow to users at all levels of computational proficiency.

Indexed as

Cell CommunicationComputational BiologyGene Expression ProfilingSoftwareTranscriptomeAlgorithmsHumansLigandsSingle-Cell AnalysisWorkflowLigands

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.