Back

Expert-Guided Supervised Annotation of Erythroid Differentiation in Single-Cell RNA-seq

Enderti, A.; Stranieri, N.; Riva, S. G.; Hughes, J. R.

2026-06-06 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.05.730313 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Accurate annotation of intermediate cell states remains a major challenge in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), particularly in continuous differentiation systems such as erythropoiesis. Existing reference-based methods often lack the resolution required to distinguish early and transitional erythroid progenitors and may generalise poorly across datasets and modalities. Here, we present a supervised framework for erythroid lineage annotation based on expert-curated training data that integrates bulk and single-cell transcriptomic information. Starting from a human bone marrow scRNA-seq atlas, we refined erythroid annotations by introducing previously unresolved progenitor stages, including burst-forming unit-erythroid (BFU-E), colony-forming unit-erythroid (CFU-E), and pro-erythroblast (ProE), guided by canonical marker genes and bulk RNA-seq references. We trained and benchmarked four classical machine learning models and identified LightGBM as the best-performing approach, achieving a validation macro F1-score of 0.821 and balanced accuracy of 0.826. On a held-out test set, the model showed strong performance across most erythroid stages, with errors largely confined to adjacent differentiation states. The classifier was further transferred to independent bulk RNA-seq samples and an external bone marrow scRNA-seq dataset, where it recovered expected erythroid progression and refined coarse-grained annotations into higher-resolution cell states. Together, these results show that expert-curated supervised learning can improve erythroid cell state annotation in scRNA-seq and provide a practical framework for studying differentiation hierarchies in settings where finely resolved public references are limited.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.