ArticleGenome biology2026
Machine learning predictions surpass individual mRNAs as a proxy of single-cell protein expression.
Article in Genome biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cell-Surface Signatures and Targets of Modulated Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells in Atherosclerosis: From State Identification to Precision Intervention.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- A map of intra- and intercellular immune responses across diverse in vitro stimuli and inflammatory disease.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Synthesizing Mechanistic Hypotheses from Single-Cell Omics via Discretized Feature Attribution and Empirical Language Model Grounding.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
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
backgroundExpansive repositories of scRNA-seq data are now available. These are often analysed assuming that mRNA abundance reflects expression of the cognate protein. However, post-transcriptional/translational regulation and the sparsity of measurements in single-cell data make mRNA an inadequate proxy for protein. Methods to quantify surface proteins alongside scRNA-seq exist but are less widely adopted. Machine learning approaches for protein imputation from scRNA-seq data have been published, which learn transcriptome-wide patterns that predict protein expression where data for both is available. These models can then be applied to infer surface protein expression on scRNA-seq only data sets, increasing their utility.
resultsWe test 9 machine learning methods for predicting single-cell protein expression, comparing the accuracy between methods and compared to using cognate mRNAs alone. Overall, machine learning -based protein predictions across methods outperform direct inference from mRNAs, including cases where proteins absent by mRNA are successfully predicted by the wider transcriptome. When comparing models trained on restricted cell types and across different datasets/tissues, we find that the overlap in cell type composition of training and test data is an important determinant of prediction accuracy. We also compare computational resource requirements to guide method selection.
conclusionsThese results reiterate that single-cell mRNA abundance is not a reliable proxy of cognate protein expression and that whole-transcriptome based imputations can improve upon them given appropriately trained models. However, limitations to the generalisability of these methods persist, notably a requirement for highly similar training data, which may limit the current scope of applications.
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.