4.8 Article

Benchmarking algorithms for gene regulatory network inference from single-cell transcriptomic data

Journal

NATURE METHODS
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 147-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41592-019-0690-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CCF-1617678, DBI-1759858]
  2. National Cancer Institute [UH2CA203768]
  3. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), via the Army Research Office (ARO) [W911NF-17-2-0105]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art algorithms for inferring gene regulatory networks from single-cell transcriptional data. As the ground truth for assessing accuracy, we use synthetic networks with predictable trajectories, literature-curated Boolean models and diverse transcriptional regulatory networks. We develop a strategy to simulate single-cell transcriptional data from synthetic and Boolean networks that avoids pitfalls of previously used methods. Furthermore, we collect networks from multiple experimental single-cell RNA-seq datasets. We develop an evaluation framework called BEELINE. We find that the area under the precision-recall curve and early precision of the algorithms are moderate. The methods are better in recovering interactions in synthetic networks than Boolean models. The algorithms with the best early precision values for Boolean models also perform well on experimental datasets. Techniques that do not require pseudotime-ordered cells are generally more accurate. Based on these results, we present recommendations to end users. BEELINE will aid the development of gene regulatory network inference algorithms. Comprehensive evaluation of algorithms for inferring gene regulatory networks using synthetic and experimental single-cell RNA-seq datasets finds heterogeneous performance and suggests recommendations to users.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available