4.7 Article

scCAN: single-cell clustering using autoencoder and network fusion

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-14218-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH NIGMS [GM103440]
  2. NSF [2001385, 2019609]
  3. Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC)
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [2001385] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unsupervised clustering of scRNA-seq data is crucial for identifying cell types, but the challenges posed by large numbers of cells, high-dimensional data, and high dropout rates are significant. We introduce a new method called scCAN that accurately segregates different cell types in large and sparse scRNA-seq data, outperforming other state-of-the-art methods in terms of accuracy and scalability.
Unsupervised clustering of single-cell RNA sequencing data (scRNA-seq) is important because it allows us to identify putative cell types. However, the large number of cells (up to millions), the high-dimensionality of the data (tens of thousands of genes), and the high dropout rates all present substantial challenges in single-cell analysis. Here we introduce a new method, named single-cell Clustering using Autoencoder and Network fusion (scCAN), that can overcome these challenges to accurately segregate different cell types in large and sparse scRNA-seq data. In an extensive analysis using 28 real scRNA-seq datasets (more than three million cells) and 243 simulated datasets, we validate that scCAN: (1) correctly estimates the number of true cell types, (2) accurately segregates cells of different types, (3) is robust against dropouts, and (4) is fast and memory efficient. We also compare scCAN with CIDR, SEURAT3, Monocle3, SHARP, and SCANPY. scCAN outperforms these state-of-the-art methods in terms of both accuracy and scalability. The scCAN package is available at https://cran.r-project.org/package=scCAN. Data and R scripts are available at http://sccan.tinnguyenlab.com/

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