Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41895263›Full record

ArticleCell reports methods2026

Integrating single-cell and single-nucleus datasets improves bulk RNA-seq deconvolution.

Adriana Ivich, Casey S Greene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell reports methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Adriana IvichDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Casey S GreeneDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. Electronic address: casey.s.greene@cuanschutz.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) deconvolution typically uses single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) references, but some cells are only detectable through single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq). Because snRNA-seq captures nuclear, not cytoplasmic, transcripts, its direct use as a reference could reduce deconvolution accuracy. We benchmarked integration strategies across four tissues, comparing principal component (PC)-based latent shifts, conditional and non-conditional scVI (single cell variational inference), and cross-modality differentially expressed gene (DEG) filtering. All approaches improved over raw snRNA-seq, but pruning cross-modality DEGs produced the largest gains, often matching or exceeding scRNA-only references. Conditional scVI performed comparably and was effective when matched scRNA-snRNA cell types were unavailable. In real adipose bulk samples, DEG pruning and conditional scVI provided the most robust cell-fraction estimates across donors and transformations. These results demonstrate that scRNA-seq should be prioritized as a reference when available, and we recommend appending snRNA-seq only after removing cross-modality DEGs; when DEG information is limited, conditional scVI is a practical alternative.

Indexed as

Cell NucleusRNA-SeqSequence Analysis, RNASingle-Cell AnalysisAnimalsHumansSingle-Cell Gene Expression AnalysisCP: computational biologyCP: systems biologydeconvolutionmachine learningRNA sequencingsingle-cellsingle-nucleusvariational autoencoder

Identifiers

PMID41895263
PMCPMC13106970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.