ArticlePloS one2025
Multiplets in scRNA-seq data: Extent of the problem and efficacy of methods for removal.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiplets-droplets that capture more than one cell-are a known artefact in droplet-based single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), yet their prevalence and impact remain underestimated. In this study, we assess the frequency of multiplets across diverse publicly available datasets and evaluate how well commonly used detection tools are able to identify them. Using cell hashing data to determine a lower bound of the true multiplet rate, we demonstrate that commonly used heuristic estimations systematically underestimate multiplet rates, and that existing tools-despite optimized parameters-detect only a small subset of cell-hashing multiplets. We further refine a Poisson-based model to estimate the true multiplet rate, revealing that actual rates can exceed heuristic predictions by more than twofold. Downstream analyses are significantly affected by multiplets: they are not confined to isolated clusters but are distributed throughout the transcriptional landscape, where they distort clustering and cell type annotation. In differential gene expression analysis, multiplets inflated artefactual signals while expected cell-type markers remained stable, leading to shifts in effect sizes and partial loss of significant genes despite high overall fold-change correlation. Using both quantitative and qualitative approaches, we visualize these effects and show that cell-hashing-informed multiplet removal eliminates artefactual clusters and improves annotation clarity, whereas computationally detected multiplets fail to fully remove artefacts in the most common experimental contexts. Our findings confirm that multiplet contamination remains a pervasive and under-addressed issue in scRNA-seq analysis. Since most datasets lack multiplexing, researchers must often rely on heuristics and limited tools, leaving many multiplets unidentified. We advocate for more robust multiplet-detection strategies, including multimodal validation, to ensure more accurate and interpretable scRNA-seq results.
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.