4.5 Article

treekoR: identifying cellular-to-phenotype associations by elucidating hierarchical relationships in high-dimensional cytometry data

Journal

GENOME BIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13059-021-02526-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council - Australian Government [DP170100654, DE200100944]
  2. Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship
  3. Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand (HSANZ)
  4. Leukaemia Foundation Australia
  5. NSW Ministry of Health
  6. NSW Cancer Institute
  7. Cancer Council of NSW
  8. Leukaemia Foundation of Australia
  9. MSD
  10. AIR@innoHK programme of the Innovation and Technology Commission of Hong Kong
  11. Australian Research Council [DE200100944] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study introduces a framework called treekoR, which empirically recapitulates cellular structures and facilitates multiple quantifications and comparisons of cell type proportions. Results from twelve case studies emphasize the importance of quantifying proportions relative to parent populations in cytometry data analysis.
High-throughput single-cell technologies hold the promise of discovering novel cellular relationships with disease. However, analytical workflows constructed for these technologies to associate cell proportions with disease often employ unsupervised clustering techniques that overlook the valuable hierarchical structures that have been used to define cell types. We present treekoR, a framework that empirically recapitulates these structures, facilitating multiple quantifications and comparisons of cell type proportions. Our results from twelve case studies reinforce the importance of quantifying proportions relative to parent populations in the analyses of cytometry data - as failing to do so can lead to missing important biological insights.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available