ArticleeLife2025
Refining the resolution of the yeast genotype-phenotype map using single-cell RNA-sequencing.
Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inference of fitness landscapes with heterogeneous patterns of epistasis across sites.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Population-scale chemical response revealed by a barcoded yeast collection.Nature communications · 2026Article
- TuningJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Learning sequence-function relationships with scalable, interpretable Gaussian processes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Refining the resolution of the yeast genotype-phenotype map using single-cell RNA-sequencing.eLife · 2025Article
- Article
- Single-cell eQTL mapping in yeast reveals a tradeoff between growth and reproduction.bioRxiv : the preprint server for 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genotype-phenotype mapping (GPM), or the association of trait variation to genetic variation, has been a long-lasting problem in biology. The existing approaches to this problem allowed researchers to partially understand within- and between-species variation as well as the emergence or evolution of phenotypes. However, traditional GPM methods typically ignore the transcriptome or have low statistical power due to challenges related to dataset scale. Thus, it is not clear to what extent selection modulates transcriptomes and whether cis- or trans-regulatory elements are more important. To overcome these challenges, we leveraged the cost efficiency and scalability of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) by collecting data from 18,233 yeast cells from 4489 F2 segregants derived from an F1 cross between the laboratory strain BY4741 and the vineyard strain RM11-1a. More precisely, we performed expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) mapping with the scRNA-seq data to identify single-cell eQTL and transcriptome variation patterns associated with fitness variation inferred from the segregant bulk fitness assay. Due to the larger scale of our dataset and its multidimensionality, we could recapitulate results from decades of work in GPM from yeast bulk assays while revealing new associations between phenotypic and transcriptomic variations at a broad scale. We evaluated the strength of the association between phenotype variation and expression variation, revealed new hotspots of gene expression regulation associated with trait variation, revealed new gene functions with high expression heritability, and highlighted the larger aggregate effect of trans-regulation compared to cis-regulation. Altogether, these results suggest that integrating large-scale scRNA-seq data into GPM improves our understanding of trait variation in the context of transcriptomic regulation.
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.