4.8 Article

Cell type prioritization in single-cell data

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 30-34

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-020-0605-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [ERC-2015-CoG HOW2WALKAGAIN 682999]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [310030_185214, 310030_192558]
  3. Genome Canada
  4. Genome British Columbia [214PRO]
  5. Wings for Life
  6. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, NINDS
  7. WestGrid
  8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  9. Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Pre-Doctoral Fellowship
  10. Compute Canada
  11. BCRegMed Collaborative Research Travel Grant
  12. CIHR Banting postdoctoral fellowship
  13. Marie Skodowska-Curie individual fellowship [842578]
  14. SNF Ambizione fellowship [PZ00P3_185728]
  15. Morton Cure Paralysis Fund
  16. UBC Four Year Fellowship
  17. Vancouver Coastal Health-CIHR-UBC MD/PhD Studentship
  18. Brain Canada Hubert van Tol fellowship
  19. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [310030_185214, PZ00P3_185728, 310030_192558] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Augur method can effectively identify the cell types most responsive to biological perturbations in single-cell data, helping to explore the relationship between gene expression changes and biological functions.
We present Augur, a method to prioritize the cell types most responsive to biological perturbations in single-cell data. Augur employs a machine-learning framework to quantify the separability of perturbed and unperturbed cells within a high-dimensional space. We validate our method on single-cell RNA sequencing, chromatin accessibility and imaging transcriptomics datasets, and show that Augur outperforms existing methods based on differential gene expression. Augur identified the neural circuits restoring locomotion in mice following spinal cord neurostimulation. The cell types affected by biological perturbations in complex tissues are uncovered by single-cell analysis.

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

4.8
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