4.7 Article

scHinter: imputing dropout events for single-cell RNA-seq data with limited sample size

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 36, 期 3, 页码 789-797

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz627

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61871463, 61573296, 61802323]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China [2017J01068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) is fast and becoming a powerful technique for studying dynamic gene regulation at unprecedented resolution. However, scRNA-seq data suffer from problems of extremely high dropout rate and cell-to-cell variability, demanding new methods to recover gene expression loss. Despite the availability of various dropout imputation approaches for scRNA-seq, most studies focus on data with a medium or large number of cells, while few studies have explicitly investigated the differential performance across different sample sizes or the applicability of the approach on small or imbalanced data. It is imperative to develop new imputation approaches with higher generalizability for data with various sample sizes. Results: We proposed a method called scHinter for imputing dropout events for scRNA-seq with special emphasis on data with limited sample size. scHinter incorporates a voting-based ensemble distance and leverages the synthetic minority oversampling technique for random interpolation. A hierarchical framework is also embedded in scHinter to increase the reliability of the imputation for small samples. We demonstrated the ability of scHinter to recover gene expression measurements across a wide spectrum of scRNA-seq datasets with varied sample sizes. We comprehensively examined the impact of sample size and cluster number on imputation. Comprehensive evaluation of scHinter across diverse scRNA-seq datasets with imbalanced or limited sample size showed that scHinter achieved higher and more robust performance than competing approaches, including MAGIC, scImpute, SAVER and netSmooth.

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