It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Many computational methods have been developed to infer cell type proportions from bulk transcriptomics data. However, an evaluation of the impact of data transformation, pre-processing, marker selection, cell type composition and choice of methodology on the deconvolution results is still lacking. Using five single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) datasets, we generate pseudo-bulk mixtures to evaluate the combined impact of these factors. Both bulk deconvolution methodologies and those that use scRNA-seq data as reference perform best when applied to data in linear scale and the choice of normalization has a dramatic impact on some, but not all methods. Overall, methods that use scRNA-seq data have comparable performance to the best performing bulk methods whereas semi-supervised approaches show higher error values. Moreover, failure to include cell types in the reference that are present in a mixture leads to substantially worse results, regardless of the previous choices. Altogether, we evaluate the combined impact of factors affecting the deconvolution task across different datasets and propose general guidelines to maximize its performance.
Inferring cell type proportions from transcriptomics data is affected by data transformation, normalization, choice of method and the markers used. Here, the authors use single-cell RNAseq datasets to evaluate the impact of these factors and propose guidelines to maximise deconvolution performance.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details





1 Ghent University, Center for Medical Genetics Ghent, Department of Biomolecular Medicine, Ghent, Belgium (GRID:grid.5342.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2069 7798); Cancer Research Institute Ghent (CRIG), Ghent, Belgium (GRID:grid.5342.0); Garvan Weizmann Centre for Cellular Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia (GRID:grid.415306.5) (ISNI:0000 0000 9983 6924)
2 Garvan Weizmann Centre for Cellular Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia (GRID:grid.415306.5) (ISNI:0000 0000 9983 6924); Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia (GRID:grid.1003.2) (ISNI:0000 0000 9320 7537)
3 Ghent University, Center for Medical Genetics Ghent, Department of Biomolecular Medicine, Ghent, Belgium (GRID:grid.5342.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2069 7798); Cancer Research Institute Ghent (CRIG), Ghent, Belgium (GRID:grid.5342.0)