2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-021-00875-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bayesian inference of gene expression states from single-cell RNA-seq data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
83
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
3
83
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A parallel publication [ 50 ] suggested a Bayesian procedure named Sanity for estimating expression strength underlying the observed UMI counts, based on Poisson likelihood and Bayesian shrinkage. Importantly, Pearson residuals are not aiming at estimating the underlying expression strength; rather, they quantify how strongly each observed UMI count deviates from the null model of constant expression across cells.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A parallel publication [ 50 ] suggested a Bayesian procedure named Sanity for estimating expression strength underlying the observed UMI counts, based on Poisson likelihood and Bayesian shrinkage. Importantly, Pearson residuals are not aiming at estimating the underlying expression strength; rather, they quantify how strongly each observed UMI count deviates from the null model of constant expression across cells.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the variance of Pearson residuals grows linearly with μ . This makes sense because for higher-expressed genes there is more statistical certainty about over-Poisson variability, but at the same time highlights that Pearson residuals do not aim to estimate the underlying (log-)expression, unlike, e.g., Sanity [ 50 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the reported sequencing depth is typically over-inflated compared to the true nucleotide capture probability of the experiments leading to an inflated estimate of the total likelihood. This issue has been well discussed in single cell RNA sequencing (see for example 47 ). One approach to solve this in the context of the microbiome to obtain technical repeats which can in turn allow us to estimate the true technical noise.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The key underlying assumption is that the observed mRNA counts are the combined result of the inherent biological variability between cells and of the sampling process due to RNA capture and sequencing [11, 20]. Therefore, the probability of observing a specific expression profile in a cell c , from which M c transcripts have been sequenced, is given by where represents the true frequency of the mRNA i in cell c .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%