False signals induced by single-cell imputation

Abstract

Background: Single-cell RNA-seq is a powerful tool for measuring gene expression at the resolution of individual cells. A challenge in the analysis of this data is the large amount of zero values, representing either missing data or no expression. Several imputation approaches have been proposed to address this issue, but they generally rely on structure inherent to the dataset under consideration they may not provide any additional information, hence, are limited by the information contained therein and the validity of their assumptions. Methods: We evaluated the risk of generating false positive or irreproducible differential expression when imputing data with six different methods. We applied each method to a variety of simulated datasets as well as to permuted real single-cell RNA-seq datasets and consider the number of false positive gene-gene correlations and differentially expressed genes. Using matched 10X and Smart-seq2 data we examined whether cell-type specific markers were reproducible across datasets derived from the same tissue before and after imputation. Results: The extent of false-positives introduced by imputation varied considerably by method. Data smoothing based methods, MAGIC, knn-smooth and dca, generated many false-positives in both real and simulated data. Model-based imputation methods typically generated fewer false-positives but this varied greatly depending on the diversity of cell-types in the sample. All imputation methods decreased the reproducibility of cell-type specific markers, although this could be mitigated by selecting markers with large effect size and significance. Conclusions: Imputation of single-cell RNA-seq data introduces circularity that can generate false-positive results. Thus, statistical tests applied to imputed data should be treated with care. Additional filtering by effect size can reduce but not fully eliminate these effects. Of the methods we considered, SAVER was the least likely to generate false or irreproducible results, thus should be favoured over alternatives if imputation is necessary.

Cited by papers we hold 14

• Biologically informed deep learning to query gene programs in single-cell atlases · 2023
  No notice
• Guidelines for bioinformatics of single-cell sequencing data analysis in Alzheimer’s disease: review, recommendation, implementation and application · 2022
  Not checked
• RNA velocity unraveled · 2022
  No notice
• Statistics or biology: the zero-inflation controversy about scRNA-seq data · 2022
  No notice
• Dysregulation of TFH-B-TRM lymphocyte cooperation is associated with unfavorable anti-PD-1 responses in EGFR-mutant lung cancer · 2021
  Not checked
• Mapping single-cell data to reference atlases by transfer learning · 2021
  No notice
• Single-cell network biology for resolving cellular heterogeneity in human diseases · 2020
  No notice
• Analysis of Single-Cell Gene Pair Coexpression Landscapes by Stochastic Kinetic Modeling Reveals Gene-Pair Interactions in Development · 2020
  Not checked
• A systematic evaluation of single-cell RNA-sequencing imputation methods · 2020
  No notice
• The single-cell eQTLGen consortium · 2020
  No notice
• Eleven grand challenges in single-cell data science · 2020
  No notice
• Single-cell transcriptomics unveils gene regulatory network plasticity · 2019
  No notice
• A systematic evaluation of single cell RNA-seq analysis pipelines · 2019
  No notice
• Current best practices in single‐cell RNA‐seq analysis: a tutorial · 2019
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.