4.7 Review

Tutorial: guidelines for the experimental design of single-cell RNA sequencing studies

期刊

NATURE PROTOCOLS
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 2742-2757

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41596-018-0073-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) [CP14/00229]
  2. European Union [H2020-MSCA-ITN-2015-675752]
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades [SAF2017-89109-P]
  4. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation [2018-182827]
  5. ISCIII
  6. Generalitat de Catalunya

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single-cell RNA sequencing is at the forefront of high-resolution phenotyping experiments for complex samples. Although this methodology requires specialized equipment and expertise, it is now widely applied in research. However, it is challenging to create broadly applicable experimental designs because each experiment requires the user to make informed decisions about sample preparation, RNA sequencing and data analysis. To facilitate this decision-making process, in this tutorial we summarize current methodological and analytical options, and discuss their suitability for a range of research scenarios. Specifically, we provide information about best practices for the separation of individual cells and provide an overview of current single-cell capture methods at different cellular resolutions and scales. Methods for the preparation of RNA sequencing libraries vary profoundly across applications, and we discuss features important for an informed selection process. An erroneous or biased analysis can lead to misinterpretations or obscure biologically important information. We provide a guide to the major data processing steps and options for meaningful data interpretation. These guidelines will serve as a reference to support users in building a single-cell experimental framework-from sample preparation to data interpretation-that is tailored to the underlying research context.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据