Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 21, 2026.

Single-cell transcriptome sequencing: recent advances and remaining challenges

Serena Liu, Cole Trapnell

F1000Research · 2016 · Review

doi:10.12688/f1000research.7223.1

Abstract

Single-cell RNA-sequencing methods are now robust and economically practical and are becoming a powerful tool for high-throughput, high-resolution transcriptomic analysis of cell states and dynamics. Single-cell approaches circumvent the averaging artifacts associated with traditional bulk population data, yielding new insights into the cellular diversity underlying superficially homogeneous populations. Thus far, single-cell RNA-sequencing has already shown great effectiveness in unraveling complex cell populations, reconstructing developmental trajectories, and modeling transcriptional dynamics. Ongoing technical improvements to single-cell RNA-sequencing throughput and sensitivity, the development of more sophisticated analytical frameworks for single-cell data, and an increasing array of complementary single-cell assays all promise to expand the usefulness and potential applications of single-cell transcriptomic profiling.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 21, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

The advent of next-generation sequencing over a decade ago spurred the development of a host of sequencing-based technologies for probing genomic variation and dynamics. Of these methods, RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) enabled transcriptomic profiling at unprecedented sensitivity and breadth, leading to the discovery of new RNA species and deepening our understanding of transcriptome dynamics,. In recent years, low-input RNA-seq methods have been adapted to work in single cells. These single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) technologies can quantify intra-population heterogeneity and enable study of cell states and transitions at very high resolution, potentially revealing cell subtypes or gene expression dynamics that are masked in bulk, population-averaged measurements,. In this review, we will discuss recent advancements and current limitations of scRNA-seq methodologies and highlight major applications of scRNA-seq in biological research.

scRNA-seq technologies: overview and recent advancements

Over the past six years, numerous scRNA-seq protocols have been developed, –. Currently published scRNA-seq protocols all follow the same general workflow: single cells are isolated; cells are lysed, and the RNA is captured for reverse transcription into cDNA; and the cDNA is pre-amplified and then used to prepare libraries for sequencing and downstream analysis. Kolodziejczyk et al. provide a comprehensive review of individual scRNA-seq protocols and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Although cDNA pre-amplification is necessary because only minute amounts of RNA are captured from each cell, amplification bias arising during pre-amplification limits the quantitative accuracy of scRNA-seq. Unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) can be used to barcode individual RNA molecules during the reverse transcription step, allowing direct transcript counting –, and many of the newer scRNA-seq protocols use UMIs to improve transcript quantitation, –. Alternatively, exogenous RNA standards such as those from the External RNA Control Consortium (ERCC) can be “spiked in” with cellular RNA to map between relative and absolute transcript counts,. Stegle et al. provide a more detailed discussion of methods for scRNA-seq transcript quantitation and highlight some of the analytical challenges unique to single-cell data.

scRNA-seq methods have also been improving in terms of throughput and scalability. Whereas most earlier methods have been limited to measuring hundreds or thousands of cells at a time, recent advancements in microwell and droplet-based, cell-barcoding strategies have enabled the analysis of tens of thousands of cells in a single experiment. The high-throughput capacity of these new technologies will increase the resolution of single-cell experiments, improving their ability to detect rare cell subtypes or transitional states.

Challenges and limitations of scRNA-seq

Current scRNA-seq technologies still face a number of challenges. Collectively, existing scRNA-seq methods have low capture efficiency. Because only a small fraction of each cell’s transcript complement (approximately 10% for many protocols ) is represented in the final sequencing libraries, scRNA-seq has limited sensitivity and is unable to reliably detect low-abundance transcripts,,. The low amount of input material for scRNA-seq libraries also leads to high levels of technical noise, which complicates data analysis and can mask underlying biological variation, –. Methods for modeling technical variation in scRNA-seq data have been proposed –; however, most approaches use the sample-to-sample variation in ERCC read counts to model and control for technical noise in the single-cell data and thus can be used only with experiments incorporating spike-in controls. Moreover, these approaches assume that the spike-in transcripts are treated the same as cellular RNA during library prep. However, naked spike-in RNA does not pass through cellular lysis and is not in complex with ribosomes or RNA-binding proteins. Thus, although spike-in procedures serve as useful indicators of transcript frequency and sensitivity in an experiment, there are many sources of variability that remain difficult to control in scRNA-seq.

Another potential source of bias stems from procedures to isolate and capture individual cells. Although micromanipulation or laser dissection techniques can isolate single cells from known locations within a cell population or tissue, these methods are labor-intensive or require specialized equipment,,. Most scRNA-seq protocols—and all of the existing high-throughput methods—first dissociate tissues to form a single-cell suspension before capturing individual cells. This cell dissociation step is often non-trivial, and enzymatic treatments used to break down tissues may impact cell viability, potentially affecting cells’ transcriptional profiles. To avoid biases stemming from such enzymatic treatments, Grindberg et al. have developed techniques for performing RNA-seq directly on single nuclei,, which can be isolated without using harsh protease treatments.

For most single-cell isolation procedures, information about cells’ original spatial context and cellular environment is lost. Recently, computational methods have been developed to infer a cell’s original position in three-dimensional space from its transcriptional profile by using a reference gene expression map built from existing in situ data,. However, these methods rely on the existence of spatial expression data for a panel of reference genes in the tissue of interest. Alternatively, emerging in situ sequencing strategies are able to capture and amplify RNA within the original tissue context, although current methods can measure up to only a few dozen genes per cell –. These methods sequence RNA directly inside unlysed cells: cDNA amplicons are generated and circularized, amplified via rolling circle amplification, and then sequenced by ligation in situ by using the SOLiD platform,. Such in situ sequencing approaches are distinct from fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) strategies (discussed further below), which detect transcripts through the binding of fluorescently labeled probes. However, although in situ sequencing methods preserve spatial information and can measure RNA expression patterns at subcellular resolution, these approaches are currently limited in throughput and require specialized tools which may not be widely accessible.

Finally, the bulk of scRNA-seq literature has focused solely on polyadenylated mRNAs; almost all published scRNA-seq protocols isolate cellular RNA by using poly-T priming, which captures only polyadenylated transcripts. Consequently, current methods are ill suited to investigate non-polyadenylated transcript classes, such as regulatory non-coding RNA (e.g. microRNAs,, lncRNAs, or circular RNAs, ) or bacterial RNA. Random hexamer priming has been suggested as a strategy to simultaneously capture both polyadenylated and non-polyadenylated transcripts in single cells,, and computationally selected “not-so-random” primers could potentially be used to capture poly(A)+ and poly(A)– species while depleting for ribosomal RNA. Incorporating these alternative priming strategies into existing scRNA-seq technologies would enable the exploration of a wider spectrum of transcript types, broadening the scope and applicability of scRNA-seq.

Complementary single-cell technologies

Although scRNA-seq alone is a powerful tool for dissecting cell populations and processes, combining scRNA-seq with other single-cell technologies supplements transcriptomic data with complementary information that helps to paint a more complete picture of each cell. RNA FISH, in which individual transcripts are labeled with fluorescent probes and then detected via high-resolution microscopy, provides an orthogonal method of quantifying transcript levels and is often used to independently validate results from scRNA-seq data. Unlike scRNA-seq, single-cell FISH preserves the spatial context of assayed transcripts and can localize molecules down to subcellular resolution,. RNA localization and trafficking dynamics often play a crucial role in regulating protein translation and cellular function; used in conjunction with scRNA-seq, single-cell FISH could supplement the global transcriptomic snapshots of scRNA-seq with information on the spatial dynamics of selected transcripts. Whereas spectral overlap between fluorophores still limits the number of transcripts that can be simultaneously assayed, new approaches using super-resolution microscopy and combinatorial labeling schemes can measure up to thousands of transcripts in each cell,,.

Single-cell genome sequencing has been developing alongside scRNA-seq and has been used successfully to map genetic variation at single-cell resolution and to infer cell lineages –. Moreover, in the past year, methods have been developed to sequence both the genome and the transcriptome of the same cell,, enabling direct comparison of genetic and gene expression variation within a single cell. This integrated, parallel-sequencing approach shows great promise for uncovering genotype-phenotype relationships and has already been used to demonstrate strong correlations between gene copy number and gene expression levels,.

Over the past few years, methods have also been developed to assay the epigenetic landscape of single cells: both bisulfite sequencing – (measuring DNA methylation) and assay for transposase-accessible chromatin with high-throughput sequencing (ATAC-seq), (measuring chromatin accessibility) have been adapted to work with single cells. These methods offer insight into the epigenetic heterogeneity within cell populations, and paired epigenomic and transcriptomic data could deepen our understanding of the mechanisms underlying gene expression regulation. Although direct comparison of a cell’s epigenomic and transcriptomic profiles is not currently possible, combining single-cell bisulfite sequencing or single-cell ATAC-seq with scRNA-seq from the same cell could enable such analyses in the future. Similarly, integrating scRNA-seq with single-cell proteomic methods, would provide insight into post-transcriptional gene regulation and the degree to which mRNA expression is reflected at the protein level.

Applications of scRNA-seq

Recent studies have demonstrated high cell-to-cell transcriptomic variation, –, even within genetically homogenous cell populations. Consequently, bulk measurements can mask important cellular heterogeneity, and lead to averaging artifacts. One major advantage of scRNA-seq is its ability to detect such cell-to-cell heterogeneity and capitalize upon it to uncover population structure and cell dynamics hidden at the group level.

scRNA-seq has been used to dissect heterogeneous cell populations and complex tissues, such as intestine, spleen, lung, or brain, –. Clustering methods,, or dimensionality reduction techniques can be used directly on single-cell expression data to group cells by transcriptomic similarity and to detect the underlying population structure in an unsupervised manner ( Figure 1A). Cell subgroups identified from such analyses can often be matched to known cell types via previously established marker genes,,,,; however, structural analysis of single-cell data has also led to the discovery of novel cell subtypes,, as well as the identification of new marker genes for known cell types,,. In the context of cancer, scRNA-seq analyses have been used to characterize intra-tumoral heterogeneity and to classify tumor subpopulations –. scRNA-seq profiling can also detect variation among cell states within a seemingly homogenous population, such as differences in cell cycle stage or differential signaling responses to an outside stimulus,,.

scRNA-seq is also commonly used to study cellular transitions between different states and to map cell trajectories through processes like differentiation ( Figure 1B). Several analytical frameworks have been proposed for inferring such trajectories: Monocle introduced the concept of “pseudotime” as a quantitative measure of “progress through a biological process” and uses techniques from computational geometry to order cells in pseudotime on the basis of their transcriptomic profiles. Wanderlust uses an entirely different algorithm based on local topological clustering to place cells along a developmental trajectory by using single-cell proteomic measurements. More recently, Shin et al. and Moignard et al. have outlined additional strategies for reconstructing cell trajectories. Once cells have been ordered along a trajectory, gene expression patterns over the course of the established developmental trajectory can be analyzed to identify key regulators and genes with “switch-like” behavior,,. Sensitivity for identifying intermediate differentiation states can also be improved by using latent variable models to account for potential confounding factors (such as cell cycle) in the expression data prior to applying trajectory analysis techniques.

Growing evidence suggests that genes are not transcribed continuously but rather undergo short bursts of transcription interspersed with silent intervals. Transitions between “on” and “off” states are governed by several stochastic processes,, and this phenomenon of “transcriptional bursting” is a major source of gene expression heterogeneity between cells. scRNA-seq can be used to explore transcriptional mechanics and to model the kinetics of stochastic gene transcription,, ( Figure 1C). Recent studies have also reported instances of cells preferentially expressing a single allele or a single splice isoform; however, the low mRNA capture efficiency of scRNA-seq makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about allele-specific or isoform-specific expression at the single-cell level.

The inherent gene expression variability between cells in scRNA-seq data can be used to infer gene regulatory networks (GRNs) –. Most commonly, genes are grouped into co-regulated “modules” on the basis of expression profile similarity,,,,, ( Figure 1D). Network inference from scRNA-seq data poses several challenges. Owing to low capture efficiency and stochastic gene expression, gene dropout (where gene expression is zero in a given cell) is quite common, leading to zero-inflated expression data. Although zero-inflated distributions can be used to accommodate expected dropout –, such models also have a greater number of parameters and can be more difficult to fit than a simpler model, particularly when sample size is limited. As previously mentioned, scRNA-seq data are very noisy, and separating biological variation from technical noise remains a non-trivial problem,. Additionally, the number of model parameters to be estimated (genes and gene interactions) usually greatly exceeds the number of sample observations (cells measured), and this disparity poses challenges for parameter estimation,. Simplifying the model on the basis of prior knowledge or focusing on only a small subnetwork of key players may be necessary to make parameter estimation feasible –. Finally, experimentally validating inferred GRNs can be very difficult; whereas knocking out a single gene is relatively straightforward, disrupting interactions between two proteins or between a protein and its target sequence can be much harder, and very few hypothesized models have been rigorously tested thus far.

Conclusions

scRNA-seq technologies have advanced significantly since their inception, improving in terms of both transcript quantitation and experimental throughput. Whereas low capture efficiency and high levels of technical noise limit the sensitivity and accuracy of scRNA-seq, more sophisticated analytical frameworks are emerging to facilitate the interpretation of scRNA-seq data –. Pairing single-cell transcriptomic data with spatial information,, or orthogonal single-cell genomic assays,,, also promises to provide new insights into transcriptional dynamics and the mechanisms underlying gene regulation.

scRNA-seq has been very effective at dissecting complex, heterogeneous cell populations, enabling unsupervised learning of population structure and the discovery of novel subtypes and rare cell species,. In the context of dynamic processes, cell trajectories reconstructed from single-cell transcriptomic data have provided insight into transient intermediate cell states and have helped to identify key regulator genes,. Finally, scRNA-seq also shows great potential for elucidating stochastic transcriptional kinetics and inferring gene regulatory networks. However, network inference from scRNA-seq data is computationally challenging and difficult to validate; inferred network models should thus be critically evaluated and experimentally tested where possible.

References 110

  1. 1.
    High‐throughput sequencing for biology and medicine · 2013
    Not checked
  2. 2.

    Wang Z Gerstein M Snyder M: RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(1):57–63.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrg2484

  3. 3.

    Ozsolak F Milos PM: RNA sequencing: advances, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(2):87–98.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrg2934

  4. 4.

    Tang F Barbacioru C Wang Y: mRNA-Seq whole-transcriptome analysis of a single cell. Nat Methods. 2009;6(5):377–82.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.1315

  5. 5.

    Wills QF Livak KJ Tipping AJ: Single-cell gene expression analysis reveals genetic associations masked in whole-tissue experiments. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(8):748–52.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2642

  6. 6.

    Trapnell C Cacchiarelli D Grimsby J: The dynamics and regulators of cell fate decisions are revealed by pseudotemporal ordering of single cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(4):381–6.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2859

  7. 7.

    Islam S Kjällquist U Moliner A: Characterization of the single-cell transcriptional landscape by highly multiplex RNA-seq. Genome Res. 2011;21(7):1160–7.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.110882.110

  8. 8.

    Islam S Kjällquist U Moliner A: Highly multiplexed and strand-specific single-cell RNA 5' end sequencing. Nat Protoc. 2012;7(5):813–28.

    Not in our library10.1038/nprot.2012.022

  9. 9.

    Islam S Zeisel A Joost S: Quantitative single-cell RNA-seq with unique molecular identifiers. Nat Methods. 2014;11(2):163–6.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2772

  10. 10.

    Hashimshony T Wagner F Sher N: CEL-Seq: single-cell RNA-Seq by multiplexed linear amplification. Cell Rep. 2012;2(3):666–73.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2012.08.003

  11. 11.

    Ramsköld D Luo S Wang YC: Full-length mRNA-Seq from single-cell levels of RNA and individual circulating tumor cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(8):777–82.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2282

  12. 12.

    Picelli S Björklund ÅK Faridani OR: Smart-seq2 for sensitive full-length transcriptome profiling in single cells. Nat Methods. 2013;10(11):1096–8.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2639

  13. 13.

    Bhargava V Ko P Willems E: Quantitative transcriptomics using designed primer-based amplification. Sci Rep. 2013;3:1740.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep01740

  14. 14.
    Quartz-Seq: a highly reproducible and sensitive single-cell RNA sequencing method, reveals non-genetic gene-expression heterogeneity · 2013
    Corrected
  15. 15.
    SC3-seq: a method for highly parallel and quantitative measurement of single-cell gene expression · 2015
    No notice
  16. 16.

    Jaitin DA Kenigsberg E Keren-Shaul H: Massively parallel single-cell RNA-seq for marker-free decomposition of tissues into cell types. Science. 2014;343(6172):776–9.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1247651

  17. 17.

    Fan HC Fu GK Fodor SP: Expression profiling. Combinatorial labeling of single cells for gene expression cytometry. Science. 2015;347(6222):1258367.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1258367

  18. 18.

    Macosko EZ Basu A Satija R: Highly Parallel Genome-wide Expression Profiling of Individual Cells Using Nanoliter Droplets. Cell. 2015;161(5):1202–14.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.002

  19. 19.

    Klein AM Mazutis L Akartuna I: Droplet barcoding for single-cell transcriptomics applied to embryonic stem cells. Cell. 2015;161(5):1187–201.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.044

  20. 20.
    Single-cell RNA-seq transcriptome analysis of linear and circular RNAs in mouse preimplantation embryos · 2015
    No notice
  21. 21.

    Kang Y Norris MH Zarzycki-Siek J: Transcript amplification from single bacterium for transcriptome analysis. Genome Res. 2011;21(6):925–35.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.116103.110

  22. 22.

    Kolodziejczyk AA Kim JK Svensson V: The technology and biology of single-cell RNA sequencing. Mol Cell. 2015;58(4):610–20.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2015.04.005

  23. 23.

    Wang Y Navin NE: Advances and applications of single-cell sequencing technologies. Mol Cell. 2015;58(4):598–609.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2015.05.005

  24. 24.

    Hug H Schuler R: Measurement of the number of molecules of a single mRNA species in a complex mRNA preparation. J Theor Biol. 2003;221(4):615–24.

    Not in our library10.1006/jtbi.2003.3211

  25. 25.

    Casbon JA Osborne RJ Brenner S: A method for counting PCR template molecules with application to next-generation sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(12):e81.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkr217

  26. 26.

    Kivioja T Vähärautio A Karlsson K: Counting absolute numbers of molecules using unique molecular identifiers. Nat Methods. 2012;9(1):72–4.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.1778

  27. 27.

    Shiroguchi K Jia TZ Sims PA: Digital RNA sequencing minimizes sequence-dependent bias and amplification noise with optimized single-molecule barcodes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(4):1347–52.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1118018109

  28. 28.

    Fu GK Hu J Wang PH: Counting individual DNA molecules by the stochastic attachment of diverse labels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(22):9026–31.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1017621108

  29. 29.

    Fu GK Wilhelmy J Stern D: Digital encoding of cellular mRNAs enabling precise and absolute gene expression measurement by single-molecule counting. Anal Chem. 2014;86(6):2867–70.

    Not in our library10.1021/ac500459p

  30. 30.

    Jiang L Schlesinger F Davis CA: Synthetic spike-in standards for RNA-seq experiments. Genome Res. 2011;21(9):1543–51.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.121095.111

  31. 31.

    Stegle O Teichmann SA Marioni JC: Computational and analytical challenges in single-cell transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2015;16(3):133–45.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrg3833

  32. 32.

    Deng Q Ramsköld D Reinius B: Single-cell RNA-seq reveals dynamic, random monoallelic gene expression in mammalian cells. Science. 2014;343(6167):193–6.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1245316

  33. 33.
    Single-cell RNA-seq: advances and future challenges · 2014
    No notice
  34. 34.

    Marinov GK Williams BA McCue K: From single-cell to cell-pool transcriptomes: stochasticity in gene expression and RNA splicing. Genome Res. 2014;24(3):496–510.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.161034.113

  35. 35.

    Brennecke P Anders S Kim JK: Accounting for technical noise in single-cell RNA-seq experiments. Nat Methods. 2013;10(11):1093–5.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2645

  36. 36.

    Grün D Kester L van Oudenaarden A: Validation of noise models for single-cell transcriptomics. Nat Methods. 2014;11(6):637–40.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2930

  37. 37.

    Ding B Zheng L Zhu Y: Normalization and noise reduction for single cell RNA-seq experiments. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(13):2225–7.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btv122

  38. 38.

    Lovatt D Ruble BK Lee J: Transcriptome in vivo analysis (TIVA) of spatially defined single cells in live tissue. Nat Methods. 2014;11(2):190–6.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2804

  39. 39.

    Grindberg RV Yee-Greenbaum JL McConnell MJ: RNA-sequencing from single nuclei. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(49):19802–7.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1319700110

  40. 40.

    Grindberg RV: Using single nuclei for RNA-Seq to capture the transcriptome of postmortem neurons. Nat Protoc.[in press].

    Not in our library10.1038/nprot.2016.015

  41. 41.

    Satija R Farrell JA Gennert D: Spatial reconstruction of single-cell gene expression data. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(5):495–502.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3192

  42. 42.

    Achim K Pettit JB Saraiva LR: High-throughput spatial mapping of single-cell RNA-seq data to tissue of origin. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(5):503–9.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3209

  43. 43.

    Ke R Mignardi M Pacureanu A: In situ sequencing for RNA analysis in preserved tissue and cells. Nat Methods. 2013;10(9):857–60.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2563

  44. 44.

    Lee JH Daugharthy ER Scheiman J: Highly multiplexed subcellular RNA sequencing in situ. Science. 2014;343(6177):1360–3.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1250212

  45. 45.

    Lee JH Daugharthy ER Scheiman J: Fluorescent in situ sequencing (FISSEQ) of RNA for gene expression profiling in intact cells and tissues. Nat Protoc. 2015;10(3):442–58.

    Not in our library10.1038/nprot.2014.191

  46. 46.

    He L Hannon GJ: MicroRNAs: small RNAs with a big role in gene regulation. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5(7):522–31.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrg1379

  47. 47.

    Cai Y Yu X Hu S: A brief review on the mechanisms of miRNA regulation. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2009;7(4):147–54.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1672-0229(08)60044-3

  48. 48.
    Genomewide characterization of non-polyadenylated RNAs · 2011
    No notice
  49. 49.

    Memczak S Jens M Elefsinioti A: Circular RNAs are a large class of animal RNAs with regulatory potency. Nature. 2013;495(7441):333–8.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11928

  50. 50.

    Jeck WR Sharpless NE: Detecting and characterizing circular RNAs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(5):453–61.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2890

  51. 51.

    Armour CD Castle JC Chen R: Digital transcriptome profiling using selective hexamer priming for cDNA synthesis. Nat Methods. 2009;6(9):647–9.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.1360

  52. 52.

    Shalek AK Satija R Shuga J: Single-cell RNA-seq reveals dynamic paracrine control of cellular variation. Nature. 2014;510(7505):363–9.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13437

  53. 53.

    Battich N Stoeger T Pelkmans L: Image-based transcriptomics in thousands of single human cells at single-molecule resolution. Nat Methods. 2013;10(11):1127–33.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2657

  54. 54.

    Chen KH Boettiger AN Moffitt JR: RNA imaging. Spatially resolved, highly multiplexed RNA profiling in single cells. Science. 2015;348(6233):aaa6090.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aaa6090

  55. 55.

    Buxbaum AR Haimovich G Singer RH: In the right place at the right time: visualizing and understanding mRNA localization. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2015;16(2):95–109.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrm3918

  56. 56.

    Lubeck E Cai L: Single-cell systems biology by super-resolution imaging and combinatorial labeling. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):743–8.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2069

  57. 57.

    Evrony GD Cai X Lee E: Single-neuron sequencing analysis of L1 retrotransposition and somatic mutation in the human brain. Cell. 2012;151(3):483–96.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.035

  58. 58.

    Falconer E Hills M Naumann U: DNA template strand sequencing of single-cells maps genomic rearrangements at high resolution. Nat Methods. 2012;9(11):1107–12.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2206

  59. 59.

    Zong C Lu S Chapman AR: Genome-wide detection of single-nucleotide and copy-number variations of a single human cell. Science. 2012;338(6114):1622–6.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1229164

  60. 60.

    McConnell MJ Lindberg MR Brennand KJ: Mosaic copy number variation in human neurons. Science. 2013;342(6158):632–7.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1243472

  61. 61.

    Navin N Kendall J Troge J: Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature. 2011;472(7341):90–4.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature09807

  62. 62.

    Dey SS Kester L Spanjaard B: Integrated genome and transcriptome sequencing of the same cell. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(3):285–9.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3129

  63. 63.

    Macaulay IC Haerty W Kumar P: G&T-seq: parallel sequencing of single-cell genomes and transcriptomes. Nat Methods. 2015;12(6):519–22.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.3370

  64. 64.

    Guo H Zhu P Wu X: Single-cell methylome landscapes of mouse embryonic stem cells and early embryos analyzed using reduced representation bisulfite sequencing. Genome Res. 2013;23(12):2126–35.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.161679.113

  65. 65.

    Smallwood SA Lee HJ Angermueller C: Single-cell genome-wide bisulfite sequencing for assessing epigenetic heterogeneity. Nat Methods. 2014;11(8):817–20.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.3035

  66. 66.
    Single-Cell DNA Methylome Sequencing and Bioinformatic Inference of Epigenomic Cell-State Dynamics · 2015
    No notice
  67. 67.

    Gravina S Ganapathi S Vijg J: Single-cell, locus-specific bisulfite sequencing (SLBS) for direct detection of epimutations in DNA methylation patterns. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(14):e93.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkv366

  68. 68.

    Cusanovich DA Daza R Adey A: Epigenetics. Multiplex single-cell profiling of chromatin accessibility by combinatorial cellular indexing. Science. 2015;348(6237):910–4.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aab1601

  69. 69.

    Buenrostro JD Wu B Litzenburger UM: Single-cell chromatin accessibility reveals principles of regulatory variation. Nature. 2015;523(7561):486–90.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature14590

  70. 70.

    Han L Qiu P Zeng Z: Single-cell mass cytometry reveals intracellular survival/proliferative signaling in FLT3-ITD-mutated AML stem/progenitor cells. Cytometry A. 2015;87(4):346–56.

    Not in our library10.1002/cyto.a.22628

  71. 71.

    Amir el-AD Davis KL Tadmor MD: viSNE enables visualization of high dimensional single-cell data and reveals phenotypic heterogeneity of leukemia. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(6):545–52.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2594

  72. 72.
    Tracing the Derivation of Embryonic Stem Cells from the Inner Cell Mass by Single-Cell RNA-Seq Analysis · 2010
    No notice
  73. 73.

    Buganim Y Faddah DA Cheng AW: Single-cell expression analyses during cellular reprogramming reveal an early stochastic and a late hierarchic phase. Cell. 2012;150(6):1209–22.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.023

  74. 74.

    Kumar RM Cahan P Shalek AK: Deconstructing transcriptional heterogeneity in pluripotent stem cells. Nature. 2014;516(7529):56–61.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13920

  75. 75.

    Shalek AK Satija R Adiconis X: Single-cell transcriptomics reveals bimodality in expression and splicing in immune cells. Nature. 2013;498(7453):236–40.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature12172

  76. 76.

    de Vargas Roditi L Claassen M: Computational and experimental single cell biology techniques for the definition of cell type heterogeneity, interplay and intracellular dynamics. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015;34:9–15.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.copbio.2014.10.010

  77. 77.

    Grün D Lyubimova A Kester L: Single-cell messenger RNA sequencing reveals rare intestinal cell types. Nature. 2015;525(7568):251–5.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature14966

  78. 78.

    Treutlein B Brownfield DG Wu AR: Reconstructing lineage hierarchies of the distal lung epithelium using single-cell RNA-seq. Nature. 2014;509(7500):371–5.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13173

  79. 79.

    Luo Y Coskun V Liang A: Single-cell transcriptome analyses reveal signals to activate dormant neural stem cells. Cell. 2015;161(5):1175–86.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.001

  80. 80.

    Llorens-Bobadilla E Zhao S Baser A: Single-Cell Transcriptomics Reveals a Population of Dormant Neural Stem Cells that Become Activated upon Brain Injury. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;17(3):329–40.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.stem.2015.07.002

  81. 81.

    Zeisel A Muñoz-Manchado AB Codeluppi S: Brain structure. Cell types in the mouse cortex and hippocampus revealed by single-cell RNA-seq. Science. 2015;347(6226):1138–42.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aaa1934

  82. 82.

    Pollen AA Nowakowski TJ Shuga J: Low-coverage single-cell mRNA sequencing reveals cellular heterogeneity and activated signaling pathways in developing cerebral cortex. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(10):1053–8.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2967

  83. 83.

    Usoskin D Furlan A Islam S: Unbiased classification of sensory neuron types by large-scale single-cell RNA sequencing. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18(1):145–53.

    Not in our library10.1038/nn.3881

  84. 84.
    Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Reveals T Helper Cells Synthesizing Steroids De Novo to Contribute to Immune Homeostasis · 2014
    No notice
  85. 85.

    Spaethling JM Sanchez-Alavez M Lee J: Single-cell transcriptomics and functional target validation of brown adipocytes show their complex roles in metabolic homeostasis. FASEB J. 2016;30(1):81–92.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.15-273797

  86. 86.

    Patel AP Tirosh I Trombetta JJ: Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science. 2014;344(6190):1396–401.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1254257

  87. 87.

    Min JW Kim WJ Han JA: Identification of Distinct Tumor Subpopulations in Lung Adenocarcinoma via Single-Cell RNA-seq. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135817.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0135817

  88. 88.

    Wills QF Mead AJ: Application of single-cell genomics in cancer: promise and challenges. Hum Mol Genet. 2015;24(R1):R74–84.

    Not in our library10.1093/hmg/ddv235

  89. 89.

    Leng N Chu LF Barry C: Oscope identifies oscillatory genes in unsynchronized single-cell RNA-seq experiments. Nat Methods. 2015;12(10):947–50.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.3549

  90. 90.

    Avraham R Haseley N Brown D: Pathogen Cell-to-Cell Variability Drives Heterogeneity in Host Immune Responses. Cell. 2015;162(6):1309–21.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.027

  91. 91.

    Bendall SC Davis KL Amir el-AD: Single-cell trajectory detection uncovers progression and regulatory coordination in human B cell development. Cell. 2014;157(3):714–25.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.005

  92. 92.

    Shin J Berg DA Zhu Y: Single-Cell RNA-Seq with Waterfall Reveals Molecular Cascades underlying Adult Neurogenesis. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;17(3):360–72.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.stem.2015.07.013

  93. 93.

    Moignard V Woodhouse S Haghverdi L: Decoding the regulatory network of early blood development from single-cell gene expression measurements. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(3):269–76.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3154

  94. 94.

    Buettner F Natarajan KN Casale FP: Computational analysis of cell-to-cell heterogeneity in single-cell RNA-sequencing data reveals hidden subpopulations of cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(2):155–60.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3102

  95. 95.

    Suter DM Molina N Gatfield D: Mammalian genes are transcribed with widely different bursting kinetics. Science. 2011;332(6028):472–4.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1198817

  96. 96.
    Inferring the kinetics of stochastic gene expression from single-cell RNA-sequencing data · 2013
    No notice
  97. 97.

    Raj A van Oudenaarden A: Nature, nurture, or chance: stochastic gene expression and its consequences. Cell. 2008;135(2):216–26.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.050

  98. 98.

    Hey KL Momiji H Featherstone K: A stochastic transcriptional switch model for single cell imaging data. Biostatistics. 2015;16(4):655–69.

    Not in our library10.1093/biostatistics/kxv010

  99. 99.

    Daigle BJ Jr Soltani M Petzold LR: Inferring single-cell gene expression mechanisms using stochastic simulation. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(9):1428–35.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btv007

  100. 100.

    Padovan-Merhar O Raj A: Using variability in gene expression as a tool for studying gene regulation. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2013;5(6):751–9.

    Not in our library10.1002/wsbm.1243

  101. 101.

    Hurley D Araki H Tamada Y: Gene network inference and visualization tools for biologists: application to new human transcriptome datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(6):2377–98.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkr902

  102. 102.

    Bansal M Belcastro V Ambesi-Impiombato A: How to infer gene networks from expression profiles. Mol Syst Biol. 2007;3:78.

    Not in our library10.1038/msb4100120

  103. 103.

    Xue Z Huang K Cai C: Genetic programs in human and mouse early embryos revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing. Nature. 2013;500(7464):593–7.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature12364

  104. 104.

    Kharchenko PV Silberstein L Scadden DT: Bayesian approach to single-cell differential expression analysis. Nat Methods. 2014;11(7):740–2.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2967

  105. 105.
    Data exploration, quality control and testing in single-cell qPCR-based gene expression experiments · 2012
    No notice
  106. 106.
    ZIFA: Dimensionality reduction for zero-inflated single-cell gene expression analysis · 2015
    No notice
  107. 107.

    Wang YX Huang H: Review on statistical methods for gene network reconstruction using expression data. J Theor Biol. 2014;362:53–61.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.03.040

  108. 108.

    Stark J Brewer D Barenco M: Reconstructing gene networks: what are the limits? Biochem Soc Trans. 2003;31(Pt 6):1519–25.

    Not in our library10.1042/bst0311519

  109. 109.

    Geier F Timmer J Fleck C: Reconstructing gene-regulatory networks from time series, knock-out data, and prior knowledge. BMC Syst Biol. 2007;1:11.

    Not in our library10.1186/1752-0509-1-11

  110. 110.

    Angelini C Costa V: Understanding gene regulatory mechanisms by integrating ChIP-seq and RNA-seq data: statistical solutions to biological problems. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2014;2:51.

    Not in our library10.3389/fcell.2014.00051

Cited by papers we hold 17

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

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.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.