ArticleGenome research2021
Modeling expression ranks for noise-tolerant differential expression analysis of scRNA-seq data.
Article in Genome research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- MIF-CD74 signaling drives immune modulation in medulloblastoma.Neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- An overview of computational methods in single-cell transcriptomic cell type annotation.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Directly selecting cell-type marker genes for single-cell clustering analyses.Cell reports methods · 2024Article
- Bayesian-frequentist hybrid inference framework for single cell RNA-seq analyses.Human genomics · 2024Article
- Anchored-fusion enables targeted fusion search in bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing data.Cell reports methods · 2024Article
- Article
- Bayesian-frequentist hybrid inference framework for single cell RNA-seq analyses.Research square · 2023Article
- Differential Expression Analysis of Single-Cell RNA-Seq Data: Current Statistical Approaches and Outstanding Challenges.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic delineation of complex biological systems is an ever-challenging and resource-intensive process. Single-cell transcriptomics allows us to study cell-to-cell variability in complex tissues at an unprecedented resolution. Accurate modeling of gene expression plays a critical role in the statistical determination of tissue-specific gene expression patterns. In the past few years, considerable efforts have been made to identify appropriate parametric models for single-cell expression data. The zero-inflated version of Poisson/negative binomial and log-normal distributions have emerged as the most popular alternatives owing to their ability to accommodate high dropout rates, as commonly observed in single-cell data. Although the majority of the parametric approaches directly model expression estimates, we explore the potential of modeling expression ranks, as robust surrogates for transcript abundance. Here we examined the performance of the discrete generalized beta distribution (DGBD) on real data and devised a Wald-type test for comparing gene expression across two phenotypically divergent groups of single cells. We performed a comprehensive assessment of the proposed method to understand its advantages compared with some of the existing best-practice approaches. We concluded that besides striking a reasonable balance between Type I and Type II errors, ROSeq, the proposed differential expression test, is exceptionally robust to expression noise and scales rapidly with increasing sample size. For wider dissemination and adoption of the method, we created an R package called ROSeq and made it available on the Bioconductor platform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.