Back

Extraction of biological signals by factorization enables the reliable analysis of single-cell transcriptomics

Zeng, F.; Kong, X.; Yang, F.; Chen, T.; Han, J.

2023-03-04 bioinformatics
10.1101/2023.03.04.531126 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Accurately and reliably capturing actual biological signals from single-cell transcriptomics is vital for achieving legitimate scientific results, which is unfortunately hindered by the presence of various kinds of unwanted variations. Here we described a deep auto-regressive factor model known as scPhenoXMBD, demonstrated that each genes expression can be split into discrete components that represent biological signals and unwanted variations, which effectively mitigated the effects of unwanted variations in the data of single-cell sequencing. Using scPhenoXMBD, we evaluated various factors affecting IFN {beta} -stimulated immune cells and demonstrated that biological signal extraction facilitates the identification of IFN{beta}-responsive pathways and genes. Numerous experiments were conducted to show that scPhenoXMBD could be utilized successfully in enhancing cell clustering stability, obtaining identical cell populations from diverse data sources, advancing the single-cell CRISPR screening of functional elements, and minimizing the influence of inter-subject discrepancies in the cell-disease relationships. scPhenoXMBD is anticipated to be a dependable and repeatable method for the precise analysis of single-cell data.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 6%
22.6%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Cell Systems
○ 201 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.0%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 2%
7.3%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.6%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Nature Methods
○ 385 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.4%
Similar papers in this journal
6
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Patterns
○ 78 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.1%
8
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.5%
9
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.3%
10
Nature Machine Intelligence
○ 70 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
11
Cell Reports Methods
○ 165 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.7%
12
Molecular Systems Biology
○ 162 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.5%
13
Cell Genomics
○ 172 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
14
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.7%
15
Advanced Science
○ 286 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.7%
17
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.5%
18
npj Systems Biology and Applications
○ 125 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
19
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
20
Cell Reports
○ 1498 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.1%
21
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
22
Nature Computational Science
○ 55 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
188 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
24
Genome Research
● 468 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
25
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.9%
26
Cell
○ 431 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.6%
27
Nature Biomedical Engineering
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
28
Nature Biotechnology
○ 172 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.