Background Standard preprocessing of single-cell RNA-seq UMI data includes normalization by sequencing depth to remove this technical variability, and nonlinear transformation to stabilize the variance across genes with different expression levels. Instead, two recent papers propose to use statistical count models for these tasks: Hafemeister and Satija (Genome Biol 20:296, 2019) recommend using Pearson residuals from negative binomial regression, while Townes et al. (Genome Biol 20:295, 2019) recommend fitting a generalized PCA model. Here, we investigate the connection between these approaches theoretically and empirically, and compare their effects on downstream processing. Results We show that the model of Hafemeister and Satija produces noisy parameter estimates because it is overspecified, which is why the original paper employs post hoc smoothing. When specified more parsimoniously, it has a simple analytic solution equivalent to the rank-one Poisson GLM-PCA of Townes et al. Further, our analysis indicates that per-gene overdispersion estimates in Hafemeister and Satija are biased, and that the data are in fact consistent with the overdispersion parameter being independent of gene expression. We then use negative control data without biological variability to estimate the technical overdispersion of UMI counts, and find that across several different experimental protocols, the data are close to Poisson and suggest very moderate overdispersion. Finally, we perform a benchmark to compare the performance of Pearson residuals, variance-stabilizing transformations, and GLM-PCA on scRNA-seq datasets with known ground truth. Conclusions We demonstrate that analytic Pearson residuals strongly outperform other methods for identifying biologically variable genes, and capture more of the biologically meaningful variation when used for dimensionality reduction.
Standard preprocessing of single-cell RNA-seq UMI data includes normalization by sequencing depth to remove this technical variability, and nonlinear transformation to stabilize the variance across genes with different expression levels. Instead, two recent papers propose to use statistical count models for these tasks: Hafemeister and Satija (2019) recommend using Pearson residuals from negative binomial regression, while Townes et al. (2019) recommend fitting a generalized PCA model. Here, we investigate the connection between these approaches theoretically and empirically, and compare their effects on downstream processing. We show that the model of Hafemeister and Satija (2019) produces noisy parameter estimates because it is overspecified (which is why the original paper employs post-hoc regularization). When specified more parsimoniously, it has a simple analytic solution equivalent to the rank-one Poisson GLM-PCA of Townes et al. (2019). Further, our analysis indicates that per-gene overdispersion estimates in Hafemeister and Satija (2019) are biased, and that the data analyzed in that paper are in fact consistent with constant overdispersion parameter across genes. We then use negative control data without biological variability to estimate the technical overdispersion of UMI counts, and find that across several different experimental protocols, the data suggest very moderate overdispersion. Finally, we argue that analytic Pearson residuals (or, equivalently, rank-one GLM-PCA or negative binomial regression after regularization) strongly outperform standard preprocessing for identifying biologically variable genes, and capture more biologically meaningful variation when used for dimensionality reduction, compared to other methods.
Retinal horizontal cells use different synaptic sites for global feedforward and local feedback signalingHighlights d Horizontal cells show segments of increased diameter (bulbs) on their dendrites d Bulbs contact both bipolar cells and other horizontal cells d Bulb contacts are GABAergic synapses d Horizontal cells could provide global signals to bipolar cells at bulbs
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.