Bayesian Gamma-Negative Binomial Modeling of Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Data

Mingyuan Zhou; Paul de Figueiredo; Siamak Zamani Dadaneh; Sing-Hoi Sze; Xiaoning Qian

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Bayesian Gamma-Negative Binomial Modeling of Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A hierarchical gamma-negative binomial model can capture the dropout-dominated counts of single-cell RNA sequencing without explicitly modeling zero inflation, while also adjusting for covariates and avoiding preprocessing normalization.

desk verdict A plausible Bayesian factor model for scRNA-seq that extends the authors' earlier NB factor analysis, but the central claim about obviating zero inflation is asserted rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00650 v1 pith:F4JZVIBV submitted 2019-08-01 stat.AP

Siamak Zamani Dadaneh , Paul de Figueiredo , Sing-Hoi Sze , Mingyuan Zhou , Xiaoning Qian This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.AP MSC 62F1562H2562P10

keywords single-cellRNAsequencingnegativebinomialhierarchicalgammapriorzero-inflationdropoutdimensionalityreductionBayesianGibbssamplingcellclustering

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a fully generative hierarchical gamma-negative binomial (hGNB) model can capture the high over-dispersion and abundant zeros of single-cell RNA sequencing data without adding an explicit zero-inflation component. Such zeros, often called dropouts, are usually thought to require a separate zero-inflation term; the paper argues they can be absorbed by a cell-level dispersion parameter drawn from a gamma prior. If true, hGNB provides a single Bayesian model that simultaneously performs dimensionality reduction, adjusts for gene- and cell-level covariates, and skips common preprocessing steps like normalization. The experiments on simulated and real datasets support the claim by showing competitive or better cell-cluster separation than existing zero-inflated methods, plus a demonstration of lineage inference on olfactory epithelium cells.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hierarchical gamma prior on the negative binomial dispersion parameter, $r_j \sim \mathrm{Gamma}(e_0, 1/h)$, shared across all genes within a cell. This single cell-level dispersion is what lets the model absorb both biological over-dispersion and dropouts without an explicit zero-inflation component. The inference machinery consists of two data-augmentation identities: the Chinese Restaurant Table representation of the negative binomial, $(\ell_{vj}\mid n_{vj}, r_j)\sim\mathrm{CRT}(n_{vj}, r_j)$, which makes the dispersion update conjugate, and the Polya-Gamma augmentation $\omega_{vj}\sim\mathrm{PG}(n_{vj}+r_j, \psi_{vj})$, which turns the logit-link regression and factor terms into conditionally normal updates. Together these give closed-form Gibbs updates for all parameters.

What would settle it

Generate synthetic data from a zero-inflated NB model with known latent structure and widely different per-gene dropout rates, then check whether hGNB's inferred factor scores recover the true clusters and whether its cell-level dispersion estimates track the fraction of zeros per cell. If hGNB's clustering silhouette drops below an explicit zero-inflation method at high zero rates, or if the posterior dispersion does not correlate with observed dropout proportions, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the excess zeros and over-dispersion of scRNA-seq counts need not be modeled through a separate zero-inflation mechanism. In hGNB, each count $n_{vj}$ follows a negative binomial distribution with cell-specific dispersion $r_j$, and a gamma prior on $r_j$ lets the dispersion vary flexibly across cells. Because deep-sequenced cells have fewer dropouts, the paper argues that $r_j$ encodes dropout prevalence, so a hierarchical NB likelihood alone can represent zero-inflated data. The logit of the NB probability is factorized into covariate regression terms and latent factor terms, enabling joint dimensionality reduction and covariate adjustment. Using compound-Poisson/CRT and Polya-Gamma augmentations, the model admits closed-form Gibbs updates, and experiments show it recovers clusters from data simulated under a zero-inflated NB model and separates known cell types on real datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that one per-cell dispersion number, shared across all genes, can absorb both the biological variability and the dropouts, so no separate zero-inflation mechanism is needed; the paper shows this empirically but gives no formal proof that the two are distinguishable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Raw scRNA-seq counts can be used directly: the model's cell-level covariates absorb sequencing depth and other technical effects, removing the need for a separate normalization step before dimensionality reduction.
The per-cell dispersion parameter $r_j$ provides a quantitative readout of dropout prevalence, since deep-sequenced cells should have fewer zeros and correspondingly different $r_j$ values.
The posterior factor scores $\theta_j$ are sufficient for both clustering and trajectory inference, as demonstrated by the olfactory epithelium analysis where a minimum spanning tree recovered three developmental branches.
Explicitly zero-inflated methods may place too much weight on zeros; if hGNB's hierarchical dispersion suffices, the simpler NB model avoids that bias while matching or beating ZINB-WaVE in cluster separation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the ARD priors on factor loadings could let the number of latent factors $K$ be chosen automatically by posterior shrinkage, but the paper fixes $K$ and does not test this.
Editorial inference: because the model puts one dispersion parameter per cell, it should be most successful when dropout is dominated by cell-level technical variation; a natural next test is to simulate gene-specific dropout rates and check whether $r_j$ alone still absorbs them.
Editorial inference: an identifiability analysis comparing hGNB with a zero-inflated NB on the same data would clarify when the two models are distinguishable; the paper provides empirical fits but no formal separation argument.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper proposes hGNB, a hierarchical gamma-negative binomial factor model for scRNA-seq counts, and shows it can recover known cell types about as well as ZINB-WaVE on a few real datasets, with a silhouette-width edge on the S1/CA1 data. The modeling is a legitimate extension of the authors' earlier NB factor analysis: they add a cell-level gamma prior on the NB dispersion and throw in ARD priors on covariates. The Gibbs updates are standard applications of CRT and Polya-Gamma augmentation, and the derivations in the main text are mostly consistent. That is real, citable work for someone building on Bayesian count factor models.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The stress-test note is on target: the claim that hGNB 'obviates the need for explicit zero-inflation modeling' is not backed by a calibration check. With a single cell-level r_j, the zero probability is a one-parameter function of the mean, so gene-specific dropout propensity beyond the mean is not represented. The paper only offers silhouette scores on ZINB-simulated data and one MD plot averaged over genes. Those are indirect; they show cluster recovery, not that the zero probabilities are correct. The identifiability concern about r_j versus the intercept in the logit is also real and unaddressed. A related internal slip: Table 1 constrains φ and θ to be nonnegative/positive while eq. (5) uses zero-mean normal priors, and eq. (14) has summation index typos (using V for the δ/γ updates). Minor, but they make the math look less careful than it is. No code, no convergence diagnostics, and only 2000 MCMC iterations with a 'highest likelihood' point estimate—that is thin for a Bayesian method paper.

Who gets value: someone comparing count-based factor models for scRNA-seq, or a methodologist extending NB factor analysis with hierarchical dispersion. The central claim about zero inflation needs more work before I'd trust it, but the model itself is reasonable and the experiments are honest enough. I'd send this to a serious referee, with the expectation that they ask for zero-calibration diagnostics and a cleanup of the inconsistencies. It deserves peer review, not desk rejection, but it's a solid incremental paper, not a breakthrough.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes hGNB, a hierarchical gamma-negative binomial factor model for single-cell RNA sequencing counts. The model places a negative binomial distribution on each gene-cell count, with a cell-level dispersion parameter r_j that receives a gamma prior, and models the logit of the NB probability through a sum of cell-level covariates, gene-level covariates, and a bilinear factor term. Inference is performed with a Gibbs sampler that uses Chinese restaurant table augmentation for the dispersion parameters and Pólya-gamma augmentation for the regression and factor parameters. The paper reports an aggregated goodness-of-fit plot, silhouette-width comparisons against PCA, ZIFA, and ZINB-WaVE on three real datasets, a simulation study based on a ZINB-WaVE generative model, and a lineage-inference application on olfactory epithelium data. The central claims are that hGNB captures the high overdispersion of scRNA-seq data without explicit zero-inflation modeling, adjusts for gene- and cell-level covariates, and avoids preprocessing steps such as normalization.

Significance. If fully established, hGNB would be a useful fully generative alternative to ZINB-WaVE: it avoids an extra zero-inflation parameter, retains closed-form Gibbs updates through existing augmentation techniques (Zhou and Carin 2015; Polson et al. 2013), models counts directly, and incorporates covariates at both gene and cell levels. The conditional updates are mostly standard and the overall framework is coherent. However, the paper's distinctive claim, that a cell-level NB dispersion is sufficient to make explicit zero-inflation modeling unnecessary, is currently validated only indirectly: the reported experiments measure cluster recovery and an aggregated mean-difference fit rather than zero-count calibration. In addition, the model specification contains internal inconsistencies in Table 1 and algebraic errors in Eq. (14). These issues are local and fixable in principle, but they are load-bearing for the stated contributions.

major comments (4)

[hGNB model, Table 1, and Eqs. (4)-(5)] The model specification is internally inconsistent. Table 1 constrains φ_vk to be positive with Σ_v φ_vk = 1 and θ_jk > 0, while Eqs. (4)-(5) and the full conditionals in Eqs. (10)-(13) treat φ_v and θ_j as unconstrained multivariate normal random variables. If the constraints are intended, the Gibbs updates do not sample from the correct posterior; if they are not, Table 1 must be corrected. This ambiguity directly affects the interpretation of the latent factor scores used in the clustering and lineage analyses.
[Eq. (14), precision and rate updates] The conjugacy updates for α_p, η_q, and γ_k contain summation-index and algebraic errors. For α_p the rate should be f0 + (1/2)Σ_v β_vp^2 rather than f0 + Σ_v β_vp/2; for η_q it should be f0 + (1/2)Σ_j δ_jq^2 rather than f0 + Σ_v δ_jq/2; and for γ_k it should be f0 + (1/2)Σ_j θ_jk^2 rather than f0 + Σ_v θ_jk/2. As written, the expressions are not the correct normal-gamma conjugacy updates and involve undefined indices (j in the η_q line, v in the γ_k line).
[Methods and Results, zero-inflation claim] The assertion that hGNB 'obviates the need for explicitly modeling zero inflation' is not supported by the evidence presented. Figure 2 reports an aggregated mean-difference plot, which can mask gene- or cell-specific zero-count errors, and Figure 3 reports silhouette widths, which measure cluster separation rather than zero-probability calibration. For a fixed cell-level dispersion r_j, the model implies P(n_vj=0) = (r_j/(r_j + μ_vj))^{r_j}, so within a cell all genes with the same mean have the same predicted dropout probability; gene-specific dropout behavior beyond the mean, or beyond the modeled covariates, cannot be represented. To substantiate the central claim, the paper should provide zero-calibration diagnostics (for example, observed versus posterior-predictive zero fractions per gene and per cell) or a simulation in which dropout depends on gene-specific factors beyond the mean.
[Identifiability of the factor decomposition] With the stated zero-mean normal priors on φ_v and θ_j, the bilinear term φ_v^T θ_j is invariant to orthogonal rotations of the factor space, and the paper does not impose or discuss identifying restrictions. The factor scores θ_j are subsequently fed into clustering and lineage-inference algorithms, so the manuscript should state which representation is being used and whether the Gibbs sampler mixes over equivalent modes. The constraints in Table 1 would partially address this issue, but they are inconsistent with the priors as noted above.

minor comments (5)

[Table 1] In the row for δ_jq, the constraint column reads 'β_vp ∈ R'; this should be 'δ_jq ∈ R'.
[Eq. (5)] The notation φ_v ∼ N(φ_v; 0, I_K) should be N(0, I_K) or N(φ_v | 0, I_K) for consistency with the other prior specifications.
[Algorithm 1] The declared output 'gene module membership matrix' is not what the model produces; the algorithm outputs posterior samples of factor scores, factor loadings, and regression coefficients. Please correct the algorithm description.
[Results, MCMC estimation] The point estimation procedure of retaining the posterior samples with the highest likelihood after burn-in is ad hoc; please justify it or use a standard estimator such as the posterior mean, and report MCMC diagnostics such as trace plots or effective sample sizes.
[Figure 3] The simulation results are reported as average silhouette widths without error bars or dispersion measures across the ten simulated datasets; statements such as 'identical to ZINB-WaVE' are hard to assess without this information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: hGNB parameters are fit to observed counts and validated against external cluster labels; the Gibbs updates are standard data-augmentation derivations, not a renamed input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The hGNB generative model is specified by eqs. (1)-(5): counts n_vj ~ NB(r_j, p_vj), the logit link (3) includes cell-level and gene-level covariates plus latent factors, and priors in (4)-(5) with gamma hyperpriors complete the Bayesian model. Inference is derived using standard augmentation techniques: the CRT augmentation (eq. 6) with gamma-Poisson conjugacy (eq. 7), the Polya-Gamma augmentation (eq. 9) giving normal conditional posteriors (eqs. 10-13), and gamma updates (eqs. 14-15). None of these update equations reintroduces the quantity being predicted as an input; the posterior samples of latent factors and coefficients are fitted to the observed counts and then evaluated against external author-provided cluster labels or against clusters generated from a ZINB-WaVE simulator. The simulation target is cluster recovery via silhouette width, not the fitted hGNB parameters themselves, so no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. Citations to the authors' earlier augmentation and negative-binomial regression work, e.g., [10]-[13], are external published techniques; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem and do not forbid alternative models. The paper's claim that the gamma prior on cell-level dispersion obviates explicit zero-inflation modeling is a modeling assertion whose empirical support may be indirect (MD plots and silhouette widths rather than zero-count calibration), but insufficient support is a correctness or validation concern, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the NB distributional assumption for counts and on the sufficiency of cell-level overdispersion to capture dropout zeros. It also relies on standard mathematical identities (CRT and Polya-Gamma) and on the sampler converging within a short run. Hyperparameters e0 and f0 are fixed at 0.01 without sensitivity analysis. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

e0 (gamma prior shape) = 0.01
Set to 0.01 for all datasets; sensitivity not studied.
f0 (gamma prior rate) = 0.01
Set to 0.01 for all datasets; sensitivity not studied.
Number of latent factors K = 2 (V1, mESC), 3 (S1/CA1), 50 (OE)
Chosen from prior literature or arbitrarily for OE; no model selection criterion.
MCMC iterations and burn-in = 2000 iterations, 1000 burn-in, highest-likelihood sample
No convergence diagnostics; point estimate is the sampled iteration with maximum likelihood rather than posterior mean.
Cell dispersion rate h = learned via Gibbs (eq. 15)
Learned parameter, but prior shape e0 and rate f0 are fixed; part of the hierarchical model.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption scRNA-seq counts are NB distributed with cell-level dispersion r_j shared across genes
Central modeling assumption in eq. (1)-(2); if false, the model cannot capture gene-specific overdispersion or dropout structure.
domain assumption Dropout zeros are fully captured by the NB overdispersion without a separate zero-inflation component
Stated in the Introduction and Results; supported only by simulation and goodness-of-fit, not by a formal identifiability argument.
standard math The Polya-Gamma and CRT data augmentation identities yield valid Gibbs updates
Standard results from [13,14]; accepted as mathematical facts.
domain assumption The Gibbs sampler converges within 2000 iterations and the highest-likelihood sample is a representative point estimate
No convergence diagnostics or multiple chains reported.
ad hoc to paper Hyperparameters e0=f0=0.01 are effectively non-informative
Chosen without sensitivity analysis; the prior on r_j is very diffuse.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Gamma-Negative Binomial Modeling of Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4JZVIBV

@misc{pith2026190800650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Gamma-Negative Binomial Modeling of Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4JZVIBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00650}
}

read the original abstract

Background: Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) is a powerful profiling technique at the single-cell resolution. Appropriate analysis of scRNA-seq data can characterize molecular heterogeneity and shed light into the underlying cellular process to better understand development and disease mechanisms. The unique analytic challenge is to appropriately model highly over-dispersed scRNA-seq count data with prevalent dropouts (zero counts), making zero-inflated dimensionality reduction techniques popular for scRNA-seq data analyses. Employing zero-inflated distributions, however, may place extra emphasis on zero counts, leading to potential bias when identifying the latent structure of the data. Results: In this paper, we propose a fully generative hierarchical gamma-negative binomial (hGNB) model of scRNA-seq data, obviating the need for explicitly modeling zero inflation. At the same time, hGNB can naturally account for covariate effects at both the gene and cell levels to identify complex latent representations of scRNA-seq data, without the need for commonly adopted pre-processing steps such as normalization. Efficient Bayesian model inference is derived by exploiting conditional conjugacy via novel data augmentation techniques. Conclusion: Experimental results on both simulated data and several real-world scRNA-seq datasets suggest that hGNB is a powerful tool for cell cluster discovery as well as cell lineage inference.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Nature Reviews Genetics 14(9), 618 (2013)

Shapiro, E., Biezuner, T., Linnarsson, S.: Single-cell sequencing-based technologies will revolutionize whole-organism science. Nature Reviews Genetics 14(9), 618 (2013)

work page 2013
[2]

Science 320(5881), 1344–1349 (2008)

Nagalakshmi, U., Wang, Z., Waern, K., Shou, C., Raha, D., Gerstein, M., Snyder, M.: The transcriptional landscape of the yeast genome deﬁned by rna sequencing. Science 320(5881), 1344–1349 (2008)

work page 2008
[3]

: Highly parallel genome-wide expression proﬁling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets

Macosko, E.Z., Basu, A., Satija, R., Nemesh, J., Shekhar, K., Goldman, M., Tirosh, I., Bialas, A.R., Kamitaki, N., Martersteck, E.M., et al. : Highly parallel genome-wide expression proﬁling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets. Cell 161(5), 1202–1214 (2015)

work page 2015
[4]

Science 343(6167), 193–196 (2014)

Deng, Q., Ramsk¨ old, D., Reinius, B., Sandberg, R.: Single-cell rna-seq reveals dynamic, random monoallelic gene expression in mammalian cells. Science 343(6167), 193–196 (2014)

work page 2014
[5]

: Single-cell rna-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma

Patel, A.P., Tirosh, I., Trombetta, J.J., Shalek, A.K., Gillespie, S.M., Wakimoto, H., Cahill, D.P., Nahed, B.V., Curry, W.T., Martuza, R.L., et al. : Single-cell rna-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science 344(6190), 1396–1401 (2014)

work page 2014
[6]

: Mast: a ﬂexible statistical framework for assessing transcriptional changes and characterizing heterogeneity in single-cell rna sequencing data

Finak, G., McDavid, A., Yajima, M., Deng, J., Gersuk, V., Shalek, A.K., Slichter, C.K., Miller, H.W., McElrath, M.J., Prlic, M., et al. : Mast: a ﬂexible statistical framework for assessing transcriptional changes and characterizing heterogeneity in single-cell rna sequencing data. Genome biology 16(1), 278 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Genome biology 16(1), 241 (2015)

Pierson, E., Yau, C.: Zifa: Dimensionality reduction for zero-inﬂated single-cell gene expression analysis. Genome biology 16(1), 241 (2015)

work page 2015
[8]

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 61(3), 611–622 (1999)

Tipping, M.E., Bishop, C.M.: Probabilistic principal component analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 61(3), 611–622 (1999)

1999

Show all 28 references

[9]

Nature communications 9(1), 284 (2018)

Risso, D., Perraudeau, F., Gribkova, S., Dudoit, S., Vert, J.-P.: A general and ﬂexible method for signal extraction from single-cell rna-seq data. Nature communications 9(1), 284 (2018)

2018
[10]

Journal of the American Statistical Association (in-press, doi:10.1080/01621459.2017.1328358) (2017)

Dadaneh, S.Z., Qian, X., Zhou, M.: BNP-Seq: Bayesian nonparametric diﬀerential expression analysis of sequencing count data. Journal of the American Statistical Association (in-press, doi:10.1080/01621459.2017.1328358) (2017)

2017
[11]

Bioinformatics 34(19), 3349–3356 (2018)

Dadaneh, S.Z., Zhou, M., Qian, X.: Bayesian negative binomial regression for diﬀerential expression with confounding factors. Bioinformatics 34(19), 3349–3356 (2018)

2018
[12]

Bioinformatics 34(13), 61–69 (2018)

Zamani Dadaneh, S., Zhou, M., Qian, X.: Covariate-dependent negative binomial factor analysis of rna sequencing data. Bioinformatics 34(13), 61–69 (2018)

2018
[13]

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 37(2), 307–320 (2015)

Zhou, M., Carin, L.: Negative binomial process count and mixture modeling. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 37(2), 307–320 (2015)

2015
[14]

Polson, N.G., Scott, J.G., Windle, J.: Bayesian inference for logistic models using P´ olya–Gamma latent variables. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 108(504), 1339–1349 (2013)

2013
[15]

The american statistician 49(4), 327–335 (1995)

Chib, S., Greenberg, E.: Understanding the metropolis-hastings algorithm. The american statistician 49(4), 327–335 (1995)

1995
[16]

BMC bioinformatics 12(1), 480 (2011)

Risso, D., Schwartz, K., Sherlock, G., Dudoit, S.: Gc-content normalization for rna-seq data. BMC bioinformatics 12(1), 480 (2011)

2011
[17]

In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

Wipf, D.P., Nagarajan, S.S.: A new view of automatic relevance determination. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1625–1632 (2008)

2008
[18]

Journal of machine learning research 1(Jun), 211–244 (2001)

Tipping, M.E.: Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine. Journal of machine learning research 1(Jun), 211–244 (2001)

2001
[19]

Johnson, N.L., Kemp, A.W., Kotz, S.: Univariate Discrete Distributions vol. 444. John Wiley & Sons, ??? (2005)

2005
[20]

In: ICML, pp

Zhou, M., Li, L., Dunson, D., Carin, L.: Lognormal and gamma mixed negative binomial regression. In: ICML, pp. 1343–1350 (2012)

2012
[21]

: Adult mouse cortical cell taxonomy revealed by single cell transcriptomics

Tasic, B., Menon, V., Nguyen, T.N., Kim, T.K., Jarsky, T., Yao, Z., Levi, B., Gray, L.T., Sorensen, S.A., Dolbeare, T., et al. : Adult mouse cortical cell taxonomy revealed by single cell transcriptomics. Nature neuroscience 19(2), 335 (2016) Zamani Dadaneh et al. Page 9 of 9

2016
[22]

: Cell types in the mouse cortex and hippocampus revealed by single-cell rna-seq

Zeisel, A., Mu˜ noz-Manchado, A.B., Codeluppi, S., L¨ onnerberg, P., La Manno, G., Jur´ eus, A., Marques, S., Munguba, H., He, L., Betsholtz, C., et al. : Cell types in the mouse cortex and hippocampus revealed by single-cell rna-seq. Science 347(6226), 1138–1142 (2015)

2015
[23]

: Single cell rna-sequencing of pluripotent states unlocks modular transcriptional variation

Kolodziejczyk, A.A., Kim, J.K., Tsang, J.C., Ilicic, T., Henriksson, J., Natarajan, K.N., Tuck, A.C., Gao, X., B¨ uhler, M., Liu, P., et al. : Single cell rna-sequencing of pluripotent states unlocks modular transcriptional variation. Cell stem cell 17(4), 471–485 (2015)

2015
[24]

: Deconstructing olfactory stem cell trajectories at single-cell resolution

Fletcher, R.B., Das, D., Gadye, L., Street, K.N., Baudhuin, A., Wagner, A., Cole, M.B., Flores, Q., Choi, Y.G., Yosef, N., et al. : Deconstructing olfactory stem cell trajectories at single-cell resolution. Cell stem cell 20(6), 817–830 (2017)

2017
[25]

F1000Research 6 (2017)

Perraudeau, F., Risso, D., Street, K., Purdom, E., Dudoit, S.: Bioconductor workﬂow for single-cell rna sequencing: Normalization, dimensionality reduction, clustering, and lineage inference. F1000Research 6 (2017)

2017
[26]

In: Statistical Models in S, pp

Shyu, W.M., Grosse, E., Cleveland, W.S.: Local regression models. In: Statistical Models in S, pp. 309–376. Routledge, ??? (2017)

2017
[27]

R package version 1(0) (2017)

Purdom, E., Risso, D.: clusterexperiment: Compare clusterings for single-cell sequencing. R package version 1(0) (2017)

2017
[28]

BMC genomics 19(1), 477 (2018)

Street, K., Risso, D., Fletcher, R.B., Das, D., Ngai, J., Yosef, N., Purdom, E., Dudoit, S.: Slingshot: Cell lineage and pseudotime inference for single-cell transcriptomics. BMC genomics 19(1), 477 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Nature Reviews Genetics 14(9), 618 (2013)

Shapiro, E., Biezuner, T., Linnarsson, S.: Single-cell sequencing-based technologies will revolutionize whole-organism science. Nature Reviews Genetics 14(9), 618 (2013)

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Science 320(5881), 1344–1349 (2008)

Nagalakshmi, U., Wang, Z., Waern, K., Shou, C., Raha, D., Gerstein, M., Snyder, M.: The transcriptional landscape of the yeast genome deﬁned by rna sequencing. Science 320(5881), 1344–1349 (2008)

work page 2008

[3] [3]

: Highly parallel genome-wide expression proﬁling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets

Macosko, E.Z., Basu, A., Satija, R., Nemesh, J., Shekhar, K., Goldman, M., Tirosh, I., Bialas, A.R., Kamitaki, N., Martersteck, E.M., et al. : Highly parallel genome-wide expression proﬁling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets. Cell 161(5), 1202–1214 (2015)

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Science 343(6167), 193–196 (2014)

Deng, Q., Ramsk¨ old, D., Reinius, B., Sandberg, R.: Single-cell rna-seq reveals dynamic, random monoallelic gene expression in mammalian cells. Science 343(6167), 193–196 (2014)

work page 2014

[5] [5]

: Single-cell rna-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma

Patel, A.P., Tirosh, I., Trombetta, J.J., Shalek, A.K., Gillespie, S.M., Wakimoto, H., Cahill, D.P., Nahed, B.V., Curry, W.T., Martuza, R.L., et al. : Single-cell rna-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science 344(6190), 1396–1401 (2014)

work page 2014

[6] [6]

: Mast: a ﬂexible statistical framework for assessing transcriptional changes and characterizing heterogeneity in single-cell rna sequencing data

Finak, G., McDavid, A., Yajima, M., Deng, J., Gersuk, V., Shalek, A.K., Slichter, C.K., Miller, H.W., McElrath, M.J., Prlic, M., et al. : Mast: a ﬂexible statistical framework for assessing transcriptional changes and characterizing heterogeneity in single-cell rna sequencing data. Genome biology 16(1), 278 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Genome biology 16(1), 241 (2015)

Pierson, E., Yau, C.: Zifa: Dimensionality reduction for zero-inﬂated single-cell gene expression analysis. Genome biology 16(1), 241 (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 61(3), 611–622 (1999)

Tipping, M.E., Bishop, C.M.: Probabilistic principal component analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 61(3), 611–622 (1999)

1999