4.7 Article

MapCell: Learning a Comparative Cell Type Distance Metric With Siamese Neural Nets With Applications Toward Cell-Type Identification Across Experimental Datasets

Journal

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.767897

Keywords

single cell RNA seq; neural network; machine learning; deep metric learning; Siamese architecture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores the use of deep metric learning methods to achieve transfer of cell type annotation across different scRNA-seq platforms, batches, and species, using only a small training set, achieving high accuracy.
Large collections of annotated single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) experiments are being generated across different organs, conditions and organisms on different platforms. The diversity, volume and complexity of this aggregated data requires new analysis techniques to extract actionable knowledge. Fundamental to most analysis are key abilities such as: identification of similar cells across different experiments and transferring annotations from an annotated dataset to an unannotated one. There have been many strategies explored in achieving these goals, and they focuses primarily on aligning and re-clustering datasets of interest. In this work, we are interested in exploring the applicability of deep metric learning methods as a form of distance function to capture similarity between cells and facilitate the transfer of cell type annotation for similar cells across different experiments. Toward this aim, we developed MapCell, a few-shot training approach using Siamese Neural Networks (SNNs) to learn a generalizable distance metric that can differentiate between single cell types. Requiring only a small training set, we demonstrated that SNN derived distance metric can perform accurate transfer of annotation across different scRNA-seq platforms, batches, species and also aid in flagging novel cell types.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available