Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Quantum Generative Modeling of Single-Cell transcriptomes: Capturing Gene-Gene and Cell-Cell Interactions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum circuit with CNOT gates can encode known gene-regulatory and cell-cell communication structure into synthetic single-cell data that classical correlation methods cannot recover.

desk verdict A functional toy quantum-circuit sampler, but the non-classical and quantum-essentiality claims are unsupported and the validation is circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.12776 v4 pith:LOCOGM6N submitted 2025-10-14 q-bio.QM cs.ETphysics.bio-phq-bio.GN

Selim Romero , Vignesh S. Kumar , Robert S. Chapkin , James J. Cai This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.ETphysics.bio-phq-bio.GN
keywords quantumgenerativemodelingsingle-cellRNA-seqsimulationgeneregulatorynetworkscell-cellcommunicationentanglementCNOTgatessynthetictranscriptomicskernel
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 introduces qSimCells, a quantum-computing-based simulator of single-cell RNA-seq data. Its central claim is that a parameterized quantum circuit—rotation gates for basal expression and a time-ordered sequence of CNOT gates for regulation—can encode both gene regulatory networks inside a cell type and ligand-receptor communication between cell types, so that the generated data carries explicit causal ground truth. If true, this would fill a gap the paper identifies: no existing simulator jointly models intra-cellular and inter-cellular interactions, and classical simulators rely on linear correlations. The paper argues that standard correlation analyses (Pearson and Spearman) do not recover the programmed causal paths, instead reporting spurious associations driven by high baseline expression probabilities, while a cell-cell communication inference tool detects the true ligand-receptor pairs through a large relative increase in communication probability.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parameterized quantum circuit with R_y rotations and CNOT gates. The R_y rotations initialize basal gene activation; the CNOT gates entangle control and target gene qubits, with the sequence of control-target pairs explicitly programmed as the GRN and communication topology. The paper treats the CNOT as a directional activation/deactivation coupling—the mechanism that gives the simulator 'known causal ground truth'—and the tensor product of two cell-type registers creates the space in which inter-cell ligand-receptor entanglement is defined. The time-ordered application of CNOT gates is what produces a joint probability distribution that is not a simple sum of pairw

What would settle it

Compute the exact marginal probabilities of the quantum circuit for each programmed edge (e.g., q3→q5) and check whether the target gene's activation probability moves in the direction the edge is supposed to impose when the control is ON versus OFF; if an edge programmed as an activation reduces the target's activation probability, the claimed causal ground truth does not correspond to the programmed regulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a quantum kernel that maps gene-regulatory and cell-cell communication topologies onto a multi-qubit state. Each gene is a qubit whose R_y rotation encodes a basal activation probability; the ordered list of control-target pairs for CNOT gates defines which gene activates or deactivates which other gene, both within a cell type and across two cell-type registers combined by a tensor product. Sampling the final state produces binary gene-activation patterns, which are then turned into realistic counts by a negative-binomial transform. In a five-gene, two-cell-type proof of concept the paper programs a cascade q3→q5→q7→q0 and reports that classical co

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a CNOT gate—a controlled flip of the target qubit whenever the control qubit is in state 1—is a faithful model of one gene activating or repressing another; if this mapping is wrong, the programmed 'causal ground truth' is not biological regulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If qSimCells works as claimed, it provides benchmark datasets where the causal regulatory architecture is exactly known, letting developers test GRN-inference and cell-communication tools against ground truth rather than against guessed networks.
  • Classical correlation-based inference should be expected to fail on such data, producing spurious edges biased by highly expressed genes; users should not interpret correlation networks from quantum-generated ground truth as causal.
  • Relative changes in inferred communication probability between interacting and non-interacting conditions, not absolute probabilities or p-values, should be the readout when validating ligand-receptor pairs in simulated data.
  • Because the kernel is parameterized and supports execution on noisy quantum hardware, the same framework could generate larger, more realistic datasets as qubit counts and gate fidelities improve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The paper's claim of 'non-classical dependencies' is about the distribution sampled from the circuit; a purely classical simulation of the same circuit would reproduce the same statistics, so any benchmark advantage lies in the circuit's expressive structure, not in hardware quantumness as such.
  • Editorial inference: The biological interpretation depends on whether a CNOT's XOR flip behaves like gene activation; testing the direction of the effect on target activation probability for each programmed edge would clarify whether the 'ground truth' is biologically meaningful.
  • Editorial inference: A natural extension is to compare qSimCells outputs against a classical generative model with the same pairwise activations; if classical correlation methods also fail on that, the failure is attributable to circuit-level nonlinearity rather than to entanglement specifically.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces qSimCells, a quantum-computing-based simulator of single-cell transcriptomes. A parameterized quantum circuit with Ry rotations and CNOT gates is used to encode gene regulatory networks (intra-state) and cell-cell communication (inter-state) with explicit causal directionality. The circuit is sampled with a classical simulator (AerSimulator) to produce bitstrings, which are then transformed into negative binomial count matrices. The authors claim that the resulting synthetic data exhibit 'non-classical dependencies' that standard correlation-based tools cannot recover, that a CellChat analysis validates the programmed ligand-receptor pairs, and that the quantum kernel is 'essential' for high-fidelity benchmark data. The central claims are that the quantum approach uniquely enables joint modeling of gene-gene and cell-cell interactions and that it produces non-classical, causal ground-truth data.

Significance. If the claims held, qSimCells would be the first quantum-based simulator to jointly generate gene-regulatory and cell-cell communication ground truth with explicit causal directionality, with implications for benchmarking single-cell inference tools. The circuit formulation (Eqs. 1-4) is straightforward, the sampling pipeline is clearly described, and the code is publicly available. However, the central interpretive claims do not follow from the results. The output of a 10-qubit circuit measured in the computational basis is a classical joint distribution; the AerSimulator is itself a classical computation. The 'non-classical dependencies' claim is therefore unsupported in this setting. The CellChat 'validation' is circular because the 'true' LR pairs are exactly the CNOT edges programmed into the circuit. No classical generative baseline is compared, so the 'essential' role of the quantum kernel is not established. These are load-bearing issues that affect the abstract, results, and discussion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1-2.3, Abstract, §3.5.1] The claim that the synthetic data exhibit 'non-classical dependencies' is unsupported and, in the present setup, incorrect. Equations (1)-(4) define a 10-qubit circuit; measuring in the computational basis (Section 2.3) yields a classical probability distribution over 1024 bitstrings. AerSimulator computes this distribution classically. Entanglement in the statevector does not make computational-basis samples non-classical, and no Bell/contextuality test or quantum-advantage argument is provided. The failure of Pearson/Spearman to recover the programmed CNOT edges (Fig. 4) is also a well-known property of any directed probabilistic model with confounding variables; it is not evidence of non-classicality. The abstract and Section 4 statements that the quantum kernel is 'essential' and that the data exhibit 'non-classical dependencies' therefore overreach.
  2. [§3.5.2, Table 3] The CellChat validation is circular. The 'true' LR pairs (g3→g5 and g7→g0) are exactly the inter-state CNOT edges in L1 = {(3,5),(5,7),(7,0)} (Section 3.2.1, Eq. 4). Their relative increase in inferred communication probability when the inter-state interaction is 'active' is a direct consequence of the engineered circuit, not an independent confirmation of the model's biological validity. The 'false' pairs (g8→g4, g9→g4) were deliberately chosen as non-entangled, so their stability is also by construction. The results in Table 3 are therefore an internal consistency check, not a validation of the quantum kernel or of the proposed gene-activation semantics.
  3. [§2.1, §3.2.1] The mapping from CNOT to 'reinforced activation or deactivation' is unvalidated and not generally monotonic. For a Ry(θ) initialization, a CNOT(c,t) gate changes the target activation probability to p_t + p_c(1 - 2 p_t) (assuming independent qubits before the gate). This increases p_t only when p_t < 0.5 and decreases it when p_t > 0.5. The manuscript does not verify this condition for the programmed edges, yet it treats CX gates as 'explicit causal directionality' and as models of gene activation (Section 2.1, Section 3.2.1). The claimed 'causal ground truth' is thus inherited from an unvalidated analogy rather than established.
  4. [§4, §1, Fig. 3] The Discussion asserts that the modeled cascades are 'impossible to capture using classical, correlation-based simulators' and implies that classical simulators are merely correlation-based. This is a straw man: SERGIO [5] and scMultiSim [6] are GRN-guided simulators and are not limited to pairwise correlation. No classical generative baseline (e.g., a Bayesian network with edges 3→5→7→0) is compared, so the claim that the quantum kernel is 'essential' lacks comparative evidence. In addition, the UMAP separation in Fig. 3 is confounded: both cases include structural sparsity (CT genes are zero in the other cell type, Section 3.4), so the difference between the two circuits cannot be attributed solely to the inter-state cascade.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The text says 'as described in Section 3.3' but the negative binomial augmentation is described in Section 2.3. Several other section-number cross-references should be checked.
  2. [Abstract / §3.5.2] The fold-change for g7→g0 is stated as 'approximately 75-fold' in the Results and full abstract, while the top-level abstract (as provided) reports '~98-fold'. Table 3 gives 0.0830/0.0011 ≈ 75.5. Please harmonize.
  3. [Table 3] All p-values are exactly 0. For a finite simulation this is not a meaningful significance measure; report uncertainty or use a non-zero threshold. The text itself later acknowledges that absolute p-values are misleading.
  4. [Fig. 2 / §3.2] The notation CX_{c,t} is used in the text but the figure does not clearly label control-target directions. Clarify the convention and the little-endian reversal with the global gene indices.
  5. [§4] Reference [27] concerns Bell-type non-classical correlations; citing it in support of 'non-classical dependencies' of computational-basis samples is not appropriate.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

CellChat 'validation' and Pearson/Spearman 'failure' are built into the programmed CNOT edges and user-set angles; the CNOT-to-regulation premise rests on the authors' own prior work.

  1. self definitional [§3.2.1, §3.5.2, Tables 2–3]
    "True inter-state interactions (g 3 →g 5 andg 7 →g 0), which represent the mechanistic LR pairs responsible for genuine intercellular signaling ... the true LR pairs exhibited substantial increase in inferred communication probabilities when the inter-state interactions were activated ... approximately a 75-fold increase"

    The 'true' LR pairs (g3→g5, g7→g0) are exactly the inter-state CX edges programmed in L1 = {(3,5),(5,7),(7,0)} in Eq. 4. The increase in co-occurrence after applying CX between those qubit pairs is a direct statistical consequence of the CNOT gate (e.g., with θ3=0.9, θ5=0.2, P(11) rises from 0.18 to 0.72), independent of any biology. CellChat's 'correct identification' therefore verifies the simulator against its own inputs; it is an internal consistency check, not an independent validation of the quantum kernel or of gene-regulatory ground truth.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§3.5.1, Fig. 4, Abstract]
    "The Pearson network (left, Fig. 4A) identifies strong correlations amongg 3,g 4,g 5, andg 7. ... The correlation is primarily influenced by the single dominant initial activation angle (θ4 = 0.9π) of geneg 4."

    The paper cites the failure of Pearson and Spearman to recover the programmed CX path as evidence that the data 'exhibits non-classical dependencies'. But the paper itself explains that the failure is driven by the user-set input θ4=0.9π from Table 1, which forces the spurious g3–g4 correlation. The observed 'failure' is thus manufactured by the chosen activation angles and then reported as a property of the quantum kernel, not as an independent prediction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§1, §2.1]
    "We previously developed the quantum single-cell GRN framework (qscGRN), using a parameterized quantum circuit to infer GRNs from single-cell data [14]. ... Building upon this foundation ... This process provides a unique entanglement inaccessible to classical computing, effectively pairing the target gene's expression to reinforced activation or deactivation by the control gene (qubit) [14]."

    The mapping between CNOT gates and gene-regulatory / ligand-receptor causality—the premise on which the claimed 'known generative ground truth' rests—is justified only by citing [14] (Roman-Vicharra & Cai, npj Quantum Information 2023), whose author J.J. Cai is a co-author of the present paper. No independent, machine-checked, or externally validated support for the biological equivalence is provided; the claim that CNOT 'encodes' GRNs is therefore borrowed from the authors' own prior work and used as a load-bearing assumption.

full rationale

The simulation pipeline itself is deterministic and reproducible (programmed CX gates, fixed angles, NB augmentation), so the synthetic data generation is not circular per se. The circularity lies in the interpretation of the outputs as validation. First, the CellChat 'true LR pairs' are identical to the inter-state CX edges programmed in L1, so their increased communication probability is forced by the circuit design and cannot validate the quantum kernel. Second, the paper's evidence for 'non-classical dependencies' is the failure of Pearson/Spearman—a failure the paper explicitly attributes to the hand-chosen high baseline activation θ4=0.9π, i.e., to the inputs, not to an intrinsic quantum effect; no classical generative baseline with the same structure is compared, so the 'quantum kernel is essential' claim is not derived from evidence. Third, the central biological premise (CNOT = gene activation / regulation) is imported from the authors' own prior qscGRN paper without independent verification. These issues make the central validation elliptical rather than fully independent, but they do not make the sampling arithmetic itself invalid. Score 7 reflects that the key confirmatory results reduce by construction to the programmed inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's 'ground truth' is entirely constructed: every meaningful number (angles, NB parameters, gate lists, LR pair labels, thresholds) is hand-chosen, and the claimed validation tests the same edges that were programmed. The only external benchmarks are classical inference tools whose failure is partly a consequence of these choices.

free parameters (6)
  • theta_i / p_i = theta_i/pi for 10 genes (q0..q9) = p = [0.2,0.1,0.4,0.9,0.8,0.2,0.3,0.2,0.7,0.5] (Table 1)
    Hand-chosen initial activation probabilities; they drive the spurious correlation structure and the CellChat baseline probabilities.
  • NB gene-specific mean mu_i and dispersion r_i for model genes = mu_i=5, r_i=1
    Hand-chosen for all model genes (Section 3.3); Eq. 6 scales binary ON states to counts.
  • HKG count and parameters = 50 HKGs, mu_HKG=80, r_HKG=6
    Hand-chosen to stabilize cell-type separation; affects UMAP and the background 'noise' that correlation methods filter.
  • GRN inference correlation threshold = |Corr| > 0.5
    Hand-set in Section 2.4; directly determines which inferred edges are reported as recovered or spurious.
  • Number of shots / simulated cells m = not stated in text
    Section 2.3 says N_shots=m but m is never given; needed to interpret p-values, histogram stability, and relative fold changes.
  • Entanglement topologies L1, L2 and CellChat LR pair assignments = L1={(3,5),(5,7),(7,0)}; L2={(2,1)}; true LR=(3,5),(7,0); false LR=(8,4),(9,4)
    Hand-programmed; the 'validation' targets these same edges, making the CellChat check a self-consistency test.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Born rule: measurement probabilities are p(x)=|<x|ψ>|^2; standard quantum mechanics.
    Used in Eqs. 1-4 and the sampling procedure; accepted background.
  • standard math Tensor product of separate cell-state circuits defines independent cell types (Eq. 3).
    Hilbert space dimension scales as 2^(n+n'); accepted background.
  • ad hoc to paper CNOT gate models 'reinforced activation or deactivation' of target gene by control gene.
    Introduced in Section 2.1; CNOT actually implements an XOR flip, not necessarily monotonic activation, and no biological data supports this equivalence.
  • domain assumption Boolean on/off gene state plus NB augmentation reproduces realistic scRNA-seq marginal statistics.
    Section 2.3; mu and r are set uniformly and not calibrated to real scRNA-seq data.
  • ad hoc to paper Computational-basis samples from CNOT-entangled qubits are 'non-classical dependencies' inaccessible to classical computing.
    Section 2.1 and Section 4; false for finite-bit distributions, which are classical joint distributions over bitstrings.
  • domain assumption Relative change in CellChat probability between interacting and non-interacting conditions is a reliable indicator of true causal signaling.
    Section 3.5.2 and Discussion; p-values are 0 for all pairs and absolute probabilities are deemed unreliable, making the relative-change criterion load-bearing for the validation claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Generative Modeling of Single-Cell transcriptomes: Capturing Gene-Gene and Cell-Cell Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOCOGM6N

@misc{pith2026251012776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Generative Modeling of Single-Cell transcriptomes: Capturing Gene-Gene and Cell-Cell Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOCOGM6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.12776}
}
read the original abstract

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data simulation is limited by classical methods relying on linear correlations, failing to capture nonlinear dependencies. No existing simulator jointly models gene-gene regulatory interactions and cell-cell communication. We introduce qSimCells, a quantum computing-based simulator that uses entanglement to model intra- and inter-cellular interactions, generating realistic single-cell transcriptomic data from heterogeneous cell populations. Its quantum kernel uses a parameterized circuit with CNOT gates to encode gene regulatory networks (GRNs) and cell-cell communication topologies. By programming the entanglement architecture, the simulator establishes a known generative ground truth for both regulatory and communication pathways. The resulting synthetic data exhibits dependencies arising from the joint probability structure of the quantum circuit. Notably, standard correlation-based analyses (Pearson and Spearman) fail to recover the programmed causal relationships and instead report spurious associations driven by high baseline gene-expression probabilities. Applying cell-cell communication detection serves as an internal consistency check: CellChat correctly identifies the true ligand-receptor pairs when inter-state entanglement is active, revealing a robust, up to ~98-fold relative increase in inferred communication probability. These results demonstrate that the quantum kernel produces high-fidelity benchmark datasets with known ground truth, highlighting the limitations of correlation-based inference and the need for approaches capable of capturing complex structural dependencies underlying gene regulation and cell-cell communication.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [6]

    Research Square, 3 (2023)

    Li, H., Zhang, Z., Squires, M., Chen, X., Zhang, X.: scmultisim: simulation of multi-modality single cell data guided by cell-cell interactions and gene regulatory networks. Research Square, 3 (2023)

    2023

  2. [5]

    Cell systems11(3), 252–271 (2020)

    Dibaeinia, P., Sinha, S.: Sergio: a single-cell expression simulator guided by gene regulatory networks. Cell systems11(3), 252–271 (2020)

    2020

  3. [1]

    Nature communications8(1), 14049 (2017)

    Zheng, G.X., Terry, J.M., Belgrader, P., Ryvkin, P., Bent, Z.W., Wilson, R., Ziraldo, S.B., Wheeler, T.D., McDermott, G.P., Zhu, J.,et al.: Massively parallel digital transcriptional profiling of single cells. Nature communications8(1), 14049 (2017)

    2017

  4. [2]

    Genome medicine9(1), 75 (2017)

    Haque, A., Engel, J., Teichmann, S.A., L¨ onnberg, T.: A practical guide to single- cell rna-sequencing for biomedical research and clinical applications. Genome medicine9(1), 75 (2017)

    2017

  5. [3]

    In: Gene Regulatory Networks: Methods and Protocols

    Huynh-Thu, V.A., Sanguinetti, G.: Gene regulatory network inference: an intro- ductory survey. In: Gene Regulatory Networks: Methods and Protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1883, pp. 1–23. Humana Press, New York, NY (2019)

    2019

  6. [4]

    Nature Reviews Genetics24(11), 739–754 (2023)

    Badia-i-Mompel, P., Wessels, L., M¨ uller-Dott, S., Trimbour, R., Ramirez Flo- res, R.O., Argelaguet, R., Saez-Rodriguez, J.: Gene regulatory network inference in the era of single-cell multi-omics. Nature Reviews Genetics24(11), 739–754 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Genome Biology 24(1), 62 (2023)

    Crowell, H.L., Morillo Leonardo, S.X., Soneson, C., Robinson, M.D.: The shaky foundations of simulating single-cell RNA sequencing data. Genome Biology 24(1), 62 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Physical Review Research6(3), 033291 (2024)

    Kyriienko, O., Paine, A.E., Elfving, V.E.: Protocols for trainable and differ- entiable quantum generative modeling. Physical Review Research6(3), 033291 (2024)

    2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Physical Review X12(2), 021037 (2022) 16

    Gao, X., Anschuetz, E.R., Wang, S.-T., Cirac, J.I., Lukin, M.D.: Enhancing generative models via quantum correlations. Physical Review X12(2), 021037 (2022) 16

    2022

  2. [10]

    Nature communications13(1), 3224 (2022)

    Dimitrov, D., T¨ urei, D., Garrido-Rodriguez, M., Burmedi, P.L., Nagai, J.S., Boys, C., Ramirez Flores, R.O., Kim, H., Szalai, B., Costa, I.G.,et al.: Comparison of methods and resources for cell-cell communication inference from single-cell RNA-seq data. Nature communications...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Briefings in Bioinformatics26(3), 280 (2025)

    Cesaro, G., Nagai, J.S., Gnoato, N., Chiodi, A., Tussardi, G., Kl¨ oker, V., Musumarra, C.V., Mosca, E., Costa, I.G., Di Camillo, B.,et al.: Advances and challenges in cell–cell communication inference: a comprehensive review of tools, resources, and future directions. Briefin...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Nature Reviews Genetics22(2), 71–88 (2021)

    Armingol, E., Officer, A., Harismendy, O., Lewis, N.E.: Deciphering cell–cell inter- actions and communication from gene expression. Nature Reviews Genetics22(2), 71–88 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Nature Communications12(1), 1088 (2021)

    Jin, S., Guerrero-Juarez, C.F., Zhang, L., Chang, I., Ramos, R., Kuan, C.-H., Myung, P., Plikus, M.V., Nie, Q.: Inference and analysis of cell-cell communica- tion using cellchat. Nature Communications12(1), 1088 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    npj Quantum Information9(1), 67 (2023)

    Roman-Vicharra, C., Cai, J.J.: Quantum gene regulatory networks. npj Quantum Information9(1), 67 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08810

    Javadi-Abhari, A., Treinish, M., Krsulich, K., Wood, C.J., Lishman, J., Gacon, J., Martiel, S., Nation, P.D., Bishop, L.S., Cross, A.W., Johnson, B.R., Gambetta, J.M.: Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08810

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    BMC genomics 21(Suppl 9), 585 (2020)

    Dadaneh, S.Z., Figueiredo, P., Sze, S.-H., Zhou, M., Qian, X.: Bayesian gamma- negative binomial modeling of single-cell RNA sequencing data. BMC genomics 21(Suppl 9), 585 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Genome biology18(1), 174 (2017)

    Zappia, L., Phipson, B., Oshlack, A.: Splatter: simulation of single-cell RNA sequencing data. Genome biology18(1), 174 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Nature biotechnology36(5), 411–420 (2018)

    Butler, A., Hoffman, P., Smibert, P., Papalexi, E., Satija, R.: Integrating single- cell transcriptomic data across different conditions, technologies, and species. Nature biotechnology36(5), 411–420 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Molecular systems biology15(6), 8746 (2019)

    Luecken, M.D., Theis, F.J.: Current best practices in single-cell RNA-seq analysis: a tutorial. Molecular systems biology15(6), 8746 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Genome biology17(1), 63 (2016)

    Bacher, R., Kendziorski, C.: Design and computational analysis of single-cell RNA-sequencing experiments. Genome biology17(1), 63 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    PLoS biology5(1), 8 (2007)

    Faith, J.J., Hayete, B., Thaden, J.T., Mogno, I., Wierzbowski, J., Cottarel, G., Kasif, S., Collins, J.J., Gardner, T.S.: Large-scale mapping and validation 17 of Escherichia coli transcriptional regulation from a compendium of expression profiles. PLoS biology5(1), 8 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Technical report, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States) (2008)

    Hagberg, A., Swart, P.J., Schult, D.A.: Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using networkx. Technical report, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States) (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Nucleic acids research 49(D1), 947–955 (2021)

    Hounkpe, B.W., Chenou, F., De Lima, F., De Paula, E.V.: Hrt atlas v1.0 database: redefining human and mouse housekeeping genes and candidate ref- erence transcripts by mining massive RNA-seq datasets. Nucleic acids research 49(D1), 947–955 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Nature Communications14(1), 3064 (2023)

    Zhang, S., Pyne, S., Pietrzak, S., Halberg, S., McCalla, S.G., Siahpirani, A.F., Sridharan, R., Roy, S.: Inference of cell type-specific gene regulatory networks on cell lineages from single cell omic datasets. Nature Communications14(1), 3064 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    BMC bioinformatics16(1), 260 (2015)

    Wang, Y., Li, Y., Cao, H., Xiong, M., Shugart, Y.Y., Jin, L.: Efficient test for nonlinear dependence of two continuous variables. BMC bioinformatics16(1), 260 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    In: Annales Henri Poincar´ e, vol

    Gonz´ alez-Guill´ en, C.E., Lancien, C., Palazuelos, C., Villanueva, I.: Random quan- tum correlations are generically non-classical. In: Annales Henri Poincar´ e, vol. 18, pp. 3793–3813 (2017). Springer

    2017

  20. [28]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology64(3), 479–498 (2002)

    Storey, J.D.: A direct approach to false discovery rates. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology64(3), 479–498 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    Artificial Intelligence Review 58(8), 256 (2025) 18

    Ali, S.I.M., Alrashid, S.Z.: A review of methods for gene regulatory networks reconstruction and analysis: Sim ali, sz alrashid. Artificial Intelligence Review 58(8), 256 (2025) 18

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.