2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41576-020-00292-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deciphering cell–cell interactions and communication from gene expression

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
719
1
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 777 publications
(792 citation statements)
references
References 186 publications
(236 reference statements)
4
719
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Although we found CellChat’s predictions can recapitulate known biology to a substantial degree, systematic evaluation of predicted cell–cell communication networks is challenging due to the lack of ground truth 7 . Here we employed three strategies to compare the performance of different computational methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although we found CellChat’s predictions can recapitulate known biology to a substantial degree, systematic evaluation of predicted cell–cell communication networks is challenging due to the lack of ground truth 7 . Here we employed three strategies to compare the performance of different computational methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…While most current scRNA-seq data analysis approaches allow detailed cataloging of cell types and prediction of cellular differentiation trajectories, they have limited capability in probing underlying intercellular communications that often drive heterogeneity and cell state transitions. Yet, scRNA-seq data inherently contains gene expression information that could be used to infer such intercellular communications 6 , 7 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Next, we used this list to determine the presence or absence of ligands and receptors in each cell identified in the single-cell transcriptome of C. elegans 36 , and ultimately the active LR pairs in all pairs of cells. To determine presence and absence of proteins, we used expression thresholding 9,24 , the most common strategy for analyzing CCIs and CCC due to its binary nature and easy interpretation 7 , and used the derived ligand and receptor scores as input of our CCI score to represent the overall potential of its cell types to interact.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CCIs and CCC can be inferred from transcriptomic data 7 . Computational analysis of CCIs usually consists of examining the coexpression of secreted proteins by a sender cell (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Single cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) allows the characterization of tissue heterogeneity at an unprecedented level, however, information of cellular proximity and crosstalk is not captured. Computational methods, of which search for pairs of cell types expressing compatible ligand-receptor (LR) pairs, have become a powerful approach for dissecting cellular crosstalk from scRNA-seq data (1). However, current LR inference methods usually predicts, hundreds of potential LR pairs for a given scRNA-seq dataset making their interpretation 1 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%