Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37549298›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

sccomp: Robust differential composition and variability analysis for single-cell data.

Stefano Mangiola, Alexandra J Roth-Schulze, Marie Trussart, Enrique Zozaya-Valdés, Mengyao Ma, Zijie Gao, Alan F Rubin, Terence P Speed, Heejung Shim, Anthony T Papenfuss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Antiviral CD4Communications medicine · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Non-microglial downregulation ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Stefano MangiolaBioinformatics Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7474-836X
Alexandra J Roth-Schulze *Bioinformatics Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5402-824X
Marie Trussart *Bioinformatics Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Enrique Zozaya-Valdés *Bioinformatics Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Mengyao MaBioinformatics Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Zijie GaoMelbourne Integrative Genomics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Alan F RubinBioinformatics Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1474-605X
Terence P Speed *Bioinformatics Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5403-7998
Heejung Shim *Melbourne Integrative Genomics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1375-9310
Anthony T Papenfuss *Bioinformatics Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1102-8506

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cellular omics such as single-cell genomics, proteomics, and microbiomics allow the characterization of tissue and microbial community composition, which can be compared between conditions to identify biological drivers. This strategy has been critical to revealing markers of disease progression, such as cancer and pathogen infection. A dedicated statistical method for differential variability analysis is lacking for cellular omics data, and existing methods for differential composition analysis do not model some compositional data properties, suggesting there is room to improve model performance. Here, we introduce sccomp, a method for differential composition and variability analyses that jointly models data count distribution, compositionality, group-specific variability, and proportion mean-variability association, being aware of outliers. sccomp provides a comprehensive analysis framework that offers realistic data simulation and cross-study knowledge transfer. Here, we demonstrate that mean-variability association is ubiquitous across technologies, highlighting the inadequacy of the very popular Dirichlet-multinomial distribution. We show that sccomp accurately fits experimental data, significantly improving performance over state-of-the-art algorithms. Using sccomp, we identified differential constraints and composition in the microenvironment of primary breast cancer.

Indexed as

GenomicsMicrobiotaAlgorithmsComputer SimulationProteomicscell-type proportioncompositionalmicrobiomesingle-cellvariability

Identifiers

PMID37549298
PMCPMC10438834

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.