Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Constructing Cell-type Taxonomy by Optimal Transport with Relaxed Marginal Constraints

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a taxonomy of cell clusters across multiple single-cell samples can be built automatically by combining optimal transport with relaxed marginal constraints and simultaneous alignment, yielding accurate cell-type…

desk verdict A genuinely new multi-sample taxonomy method with a solid ablation study, but the accuracy claim rests on an idealized evaluation; worth refereeing with a request for real-world cluster inputs. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18650 v1 pith:VWLW7FX3 submitted 2025-01-29 q-bio.GN cs.LGstat.ML

Sebastian Pena , Lin Lin , Jia Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.GNcs.LGstat.ML
keywords single-cellRNA-seqcell-typetaxonomyoptimaltransportrelaxedmarginalconstraintsclusteralignmenthierarchicalclusteringsampleclassificationmeta-cluster
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

The paper sets out to show that a taxonomy of cell clusters across many single-cell RNA-seq samples can be constructed automatically, without pooling cells or using an annotated reference. The proposed system, MOTT, combines optimal transport with relaxed marginal constraints (OT-RMC) for pairwise cluster matching with simultaneous alignment of all samples, and then builds a hierarchy by clustering the resulting similarity matrix. The authors report that on more than twenty dataset configurations from eleven scRNA-seq sources, the resulting taxonomy annotates cell types accurately and yields sample-level features that classify phenotypes correctly. The payoff would be consistent cluster labels across samples, which are needed for merging data, finding marker genes, and downstream classification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the OT-RMC matching weight matrix $W$. For two samples, each cluster is summarized by a Gaussian $N(\mu_k^{(i)}, \Sigma_k^{(i)})$, and the entry $D(C_k^{(i)}, C_l^{(j)})$ of the cost matrix is the standardized squared Wasserstein distance between the two Gaussians. OT-RMC then minimizes $\langle D, W\rangle + \lambda L(g)$ subject to a total-mass constraint and relaxed marginal constraints with gap vectors $g_1, g_2$, penalized by their L1 norm; nonzero gaps let a cluster receive zero induced proportion, so a cell type missing from a sample can be left unmatched. The optimal weight matrices for all sample pairs are row- and column-normalized and averaged, tiled into a global similarity matrix $B$, converted to a distance matrix by $-\log(\cdot)$ and division by the maximum, and finally clustered with Ward's linkage to produce the taxonomy tree.

What would settle it

Apply MOTT to clusters produced by a standard unsupervised clustering pipeline, such as Louvain on each sample separately, for a dataset with expert-annotated cell types, and compare the meta-cluster labels with the annotations. The central claim would be falsified if the annotation accuracy falls substantially below the cluster-level accuracy reported in the paper for that dataset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that OT-RMC provides a robust matching weight between clusters of two samples even when cell-type proportions vary strongly and some cell types are absent from one sample, and that assembling all pairwise matching weights into a global similarity matrix before clustering yields a taxonomy that groups clusters of the same cell type across samples. The method represents each cluster by a fitted Gaussian, computes standardized squared Wasserstein distances as matching costs, and solves an OT-RMC problem with gap variables that allow clusters to be left unmatched. The pairwise weight matrices are normalized, tiled into one block matrix, log-transformed into distances, and clustered with Ward's linkage; the number of meta-clusters is set to the known number of cell types, and each meta-cluster is labeled by majority vote. Experiments on more than twenty dataset configurations show high cluster-level and cell-level annotation accuracy, and sample-level classification using taxonomy-derived cell-type proportions matches or exceeds classification based on ground-truth labels in several datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the input clusters are faithful proxies for cell types; because MOTT never pools cells or re-clusters, any error in the upstream clustering carries directly into the taxonomy, and the experiments use ground-truth cell types as the clusters, leaving behavior on realistic noisy clusters untested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MOTT can assign consistent cell-type labels to clusters across samples without an annotated reference or marker genes, so it can annotate datasets where no representative training set exists.
  • Because the relaxed marginal constraints allow unmatched clusters, the method handles cell types that appear in only some samples and strongly varying cluster proportions, conditions under which standard optimal transport fails.
  • Taxonomy-derived cell-type proportions serve as sample features for phenotype classification, and in the reported tests they match or beat classification based on ground-truth labels.
  • The taxonomy groups clusters into meta-clusters and also yields a hierarchy of cell-type similarity, although the paper does not validate that similarity against an external standard.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct follow-up would test MOTT on clusters produced by an unsupervised pipeline rather than ground-truth types; performance would likely drop, but combining MOTT with cluster-quality filters could mitigate the gap.
  • The OT-RMC plus simultaneous-alignment recipe is domain-agnostic and could be applied to other multi-sample cluster-correspondence problems, such as flow cytometry or spatial transcriptomics.
  • The hierarchy itself could be validated against known lineage trees or marker-gene overlap to define cell-type similarity, an evaluation the authors explicitly leave open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MOTT (Multisample OT Taxonomy), a system that constructs a hierarchical taxonomy of cell clusters across multiple single-cell RNA-seq samples. MOTT combines optimal transport with relaxed marginal constraints (OT-RMC) from the authors' prior work to compute pairwise cluster matching weights, tiles these weights into an overall similarity matrix, transforms it to a distance matrix, and applies Ward's hierarchical clustering to form meta-clusters that represent consistent cell-type labels across samples. The system is evaluated on 11 scRNA-seq datasets in two tasks: cell-type annotation accuracy (ARI, cluster-level accuracy, cell-level accuracy) and sample-level classification using cluster proportions as features. The paper reports that MOTT outperforms its method variants (OT, POT, reference alignment) in most settings and achieves competitive sample-level classification. The authors also discuss limitations, including the lack of evaluation of cell-type similarity and the static-sample assumption.

Significance. If the empirical claims were established under realistic conditions, MOTT would be a useful contribution to multi-sample single-cell analysis, particularly because it operates on independently derived clusters without pooling raw data, which is relevant for privacy and large-scale studies. The use of OT-RMC to allow clusters to appear or disappear across samples is well motivated, and the simultaneous alignment across all samples is a sensible design choice. The paper is clearly written and the code/data availability is a strength. However, the empirical support is currently compromised by the evaluation design: input clusters are formed from ground-truth cell types and the number of meta-clusters is set to the known number of cell types, so the reported accuracies do not reflect performance on noisy or unknown upstream clustering. The lack of external baselines and of statistical uncertainty further limits the strength of the claims. The core methodological components are largely from prior work, so the novelty is primarily in the system integration, which is a legitimate but modest contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, §3.1] The evaluation uses ground-truth cell types to form the input clusters within each sample ('The 11 datasets we tested include ground truth cell types, which are used to form cell clusters within each sample') and sets the number of meta-clusters equal to the known number of cell types (Step 3 of §3.1). This makes the reported accuracy numbers conditional on perfect upstream clustering and known taxonomy size, neither of which holds in a realistic application where clusters are produced computationally and the number of cell types is unknown. The abstract's claim that the taxonomy 'can yield highly accurate annotation of cell types' is therefore not established for the intended use case. The authors should evaluate with computationally derived clusters (e.g., from Seurat or other standard tools) and with a data-driven method for choosing the dendrogram cut, or explicitly temper the claim to reflect the idealized setting.
  2. [§4.4] The hyperparameter λ is selected by evaluating performance on the same datasets used for the reported results ('By varying λ from 0.005 to 0.15, we find that the optimal value for λ is always around 0.075'). This constitutes tuning on the test data, which can inflate the reported accuracies. The authors should either fix λ based on a validation set or prior reasoning, or report results across a range of λ with appropriate error bars, to demonstrate that the conclusions are not an artifact of overfitting.
  3. [§4.1, §4.4] All baseline methods are variants of the proposed framework (OT, POT, reference alignment), with no comparison to existing tools for cell-type annotation or cluster matching, such as ClusterMap, scmap, scPred, or other published approaches. Since the paper motivates its contribution by citing limitations of existing methods (e.g., marker-gene dependence, pairwise reference matching), a direct empirical comparison is necessary to support the claimed advantages. The current results show internal consistency among the variants but do not position MOTT relative to the state of the art.
  4. [§4.5, Table 2] The sample-level classification results are obtained with leave-one-out cross-validation on at most 20 samples and are reported without any measure of variability (e.g., confidence intervals) or significance tests. Differences between methods are often small (e.g., OT-RMC-SA vs POT-SA on Bacher, with Acc. 0.6 vs 0.45 but overlapping given the tiny sample size) and appear dataset-specific. The claim that OT-RMC-SA yields 'the most accurate classification across datasets' is not statistically supported as presented.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §4.1] The abstract states 'Experiments on more than twenty datasets' but the paper reports 11 data sources (Table 1), with some datasets having multiple label sets or simulated-sample variants. Please clarify the counting convention or adjust the wording to avoid overstatement.
  2. [§3.1] Step 3 notes that the number of groups is set equal to the number of ground-truth cell types, but this is a critical practical assumption. A brief discussion of how the dendrogram would be cut in an unsupervised setting (e.g., using a stability-based criterion or a gap statistic) would help readers assess real-world applicability.
  3. [§4.4] Figure 6 shows sensitivity to λ for three datasets; consider reporting the same analysis for all datasets or providing a summary of the range of λ values that yield near-optimal performance, to strengthen the claim that λ=0.075 is a robust choice.
  4. [§2, References] The related work section would benefit from a brief discussion of recent systematic benchmarks of cell-type annotation methods (beyond ref. [1]) to better contextualize the claimed improvements.
  5. [Table 1, §4.1] For datasets without sample division (Tasic, He Organ, etc.), the table does not list a number of samples; the reliance on simulated samples is explained later, but a note in the table caption would improve readability.
  6. [Figure 4] The three panels in Figure 4 are dense and the labels are small; separating the panels or enlarging the figure would make the comparisons easier to parse.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Evaluation circularity is partial: oracle K and ground-truth clusters inflate the reported annotation accuracy, and λ is tuned on the same data, though the OT-RMC matching derivation itself is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Step 3 (dendrogram cut); Section 4.1 (cluster construction)]
    "The number of groups is set equal to the number of ground truth cell types in the original dataset. ... The 11 datasets we tested include ground truth cell types, which are used to form cell clusters within each sample."

    The input clusters are constructed from the ground-truth cell-type labels that the taxonomy is later scored against, and the number of meta-clusters K is set to the number of those same ground-truth labels. The evaluation therefore measures how well the method can re-derive a grouping whose granularity was supplied by the target labels. It does not test taxonomy construction from clusters of unknown purity and unknown K. The matching itself is not forced because the algorithm still must assign similar clusters correctly, so this is partial evaluation circularity rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4 (lambda selection)]
    "By varying λ from 0.005 to 0.15, we find that the optimal value for λ is always around 0.075. Hence, we set λ = 0.075 for the above reported results."

    λ is chosen by maximizing the reported accuracy metrics on the same datasets whose high accuracy is then presented as evidence for the method. No held-out validation or separate test split is described, so the headline numbers are selected optima over a λ-grid rather than out-of-sample predictions. The authors also state that performance is stable with λ, so this is a secondary overfitting and evaluation-circularity concern, not the main reason the method succeeds.

full rationale

OT-RMC is imported from the coauthors' prior paper [25], but the present paper restates the optimization problem in Section 3.2, compares OT-RMC with OT and POT, and evaluates on multiple public datasets. The self-citation is therefore not load-bearing in the derivation: the central matching problem remains nontrivial and the comparisons are empirical. The main circularity concern is in the evaluation design: ground-truth clusters as input, K fixed from ground truth, and λ tuned on the same data. These choices make the reported 'highly accurate annotation' partly dependent on the target labels, but they do not make the output equivalent to the input by construction. Score 4 reflects partial evaluation circularity, not a forced derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the upstream clustering being trustworthy, on pairwise matchings being combinable, and on the Gaussian approximation. None of these is proven; the method itself supplies no new entities. The evaluation additionally uses ground-truth labels to set the input clusters and the number of groups.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda (gap penalty in OT-RMC) = 0.075
    Chosen by sweeping 0.005 to 0.15 across datasets (Section 4.4); trades off matching cost vs marginal deviations.
  • Number of meta-clusters (dendrogram cut) = set equal to the number of ground-truth cell types per dataset
    Section 3.1: 'The number of groups is set equal to the number of ground truth cell types in the original dataset.' Unavailable in real use and leaks the evaluation labels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Input clusters C(i)_k are meaningful cell-type groups and are consistent in granularity across samples.
    Section 1 states clusters 'correspond to different cell types'; Section 3.1 takes clusters as given. The method never pools cells or re-clusters, so it inherits all errors of the upstream clustering.
  • domain assumption Pairwise OT-RMC matching weights can be tiled into a single global similarity matrix, i.e., pairwise alignments are sufficiently consistent to define a joint hierarchy.
    Section 3.1 forms B by tiling normalized pairwise W matrices; no transitivity constraint is imposed, and inconsistent pairwise matchings could produce contradictory taxonomy.
  • domain assumption Clusters can be approximated by Gaussian distributions in a PCA-reduced space, and squared Wasserstein distance between these Gaussians is a valid cluster distance.
    Section 3.2 defines the cost matrix via Gaussian Wasserstein distance; this assumes unimodal, roughly Gaussian clusters and that PCA retains discriminative signal.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground-truth cell types are available to set the number of meta-clusters and to form the input clusters in the evaluation.
    Sections 3.1 and 4.1. This is an evaluation setup, not a property of the method, and it makes reported accuracies optimistic for real unsupervised use.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constructing Cell-type Taxonomy by Optimal Transport with Relaxed Marginal Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWLW7FX3

@misc{pith2026250118650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constructing Cell-type Taxonomy by Optimal Transport with Relaxed Marginal Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWLW7FX3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18650}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid emergence of single-cell data has facilitated the study of many different biological conditions at the cellular level. Cluster analysis has been widely applied to identify cell types, capturing the essential patterns of the original data in a much more concise form. One challenge in the cluster analysis of cells is matching clusters extracted from datasets of different origins or conditions. Many existing algorithms cannot recognize new cell types present in only one of the two samples when establishing a correspondence between clusters obtained from two samples. Additionally, when there are more than two samples, it is advantageous to align clusters across all samples simultaneously rather than performing pairwise alignment. Our approach aims to construct a taxonomy for cell clusters across all samples to better annotate these clusters and effectively extract features for downstream analysis. A new system for constructing cell-type taxonomy has been developed by combining the technique of Optimal Transport with Relaxed Marginal Constraints (OT-RMC) and the simultaneous alignment of clusters across multiple samples. OT-RMC allows us to address challenges that arise when the proportions of clusters vary substantially between samples or when some clusters do not appear in all the samples. Experiments on more than twenty datasets demonstrate that the taxonomy constructed by this new system can yield highly accurate annotation of cell types. Additionally, sample-level features extracted based on the taxonomy result in accurate classification of samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18650 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic representation of the Multisample OT Taxonomy (MOTT) system. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. t-SNE plots showing data grouped by ground truth cell types (left column) and by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example taxonomy created by MOTT for the Segerstolpe dataset. The Segerstolpe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy achieved by four methods for identifying cell types based on the taxonomy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Boxplots showing the differences in performance between pairs of real sample and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cell type labeling performance achieved by OT-RMC-SA, as measured by cluster-level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single- cell RNA sequencing data

    Tamim Abdelaal et al. “A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single- cell RNA sequencing data”. In: Genome Biology 2019 (2019), p. 194. doi: https://doi. org/10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z

    work page doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z 2019

  2. [2]

    scPred: accurate supervised method for cell-type clas- sification from single-cell RNA-seq data

    Jose Alquicira-Hernandez et al. “scPred: accurate supervised method for cell-type clas- sification from single-cell RNA-seq data”. In: Genome Biology 20 (2019). doi: https: //doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1862-5

    work page doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1862-5 2019

  3. [3]

    flowMatch: Cell population matching and meta-clustering in Flow Cytometry

    Ariful Azad and Alex Pothen. “flowMatch: Cell population matching and meta-clustering in Flow Cytometry”. In: Bioconductor (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Low-avidity CD4+ T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed individuals and humans with severe COVID-19

    Petra Bacher et al. “Low-avidity CD4+ T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed individuals and humans with severe COVID-19”. In: Immunity 53.6 (2020), pp. 1258– 1271

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    A Single-Cell Transcriptomic Map of the Human and Mouse Pan- creas Reveals Inter- and Intra-cell Population Structure

    Maayan Baron et al. “A Single-Cell Transcriptomic Map of the Human and Mouse Pan- creas Reveals Inter- and Intra-cell Population Structure.” In: Cell Systems 3 (2016), pp. 346–360. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2016.08.011

    doi:10.1016/j.cels.2016.08.011 2016

  6. [6]

    Iterative Bregman projections for regularized transportation problems

    Jean-David Benamou et al. “Iterative Bregman projections for regularized transportation problems”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 37.2 (2015), A1111–A1138

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    A unified computational framework for single-cell data integration with optimal transport

    Kai Cao et al. “A unified computational framework for single-cell data integration with optimal transport”. In: Nature Communications 13.1 (2022), p. 7419

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Tutorial: guidelines for annotating single-cell transcriptomic maps using automated and manual methods

    Zoe A. Clarke et al. “Tutorial: guidelines for annotating single-cell transcriptomic maps using automated and manual methods”. In: Nature Protocols 16 (2021), pp. 2749–2764. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-021-00534-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41596-021-00534-0 2021

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    POT: Python Optimal Transport

    R´ emi Flamary et al. “POT: Python Optimal Transport”. In:Journal of Machine Learning Research 22.78 (2021), pp. 1–8. url: http://jmlr.org/papers/v22/20-451.html

    2021

  2. [10]

    ClusterMap: compare multiple single cell RNA-Seq datasets across dif- ferent experimental conditions

    Xin Gao et al. “ClusterMap: compare multiple single cell RNA-Seq datasets across dif- ferent experimental conditions”. In: Bioinformatics 35.17 (2019), pp. 3038–3045

    2019

  3. [11]

    Batch effects in single-cell RNA-sequencing data are corrected by matching mutual nearest neighbors

    Laleh Haghverdi et al. “Batch effects in single-cell RNA-sequencing data are corrected by matching mutual nearest neighbors”. In: Nature biotechnology 36.5 (2018), pp. 421–427. 23

    2018

  4. [12]

    Single-cell transcriptome profiling of an adult human cell atlas of 15 major organs

    Shuai He et al. “Single-cell transcriptome profiling of an adult human cell atlas of 15 major organs”. In: Genome biology 21 (2020), pp. 1–34

    2020

  5. [13]

    scMatch: a single-cell gene expres- sion profile annotation tool using reference datasets

    Rui Hou, Elena Denisenko, and Alistair RR Forrest. “scMatch: a single-cell gene expres- sion profile annotation tool using reference datasets”. In: Bioinformatics 35.22 (2019), pp. 4688–4695

    2019

  6. [14]

    Evaluation of deep learning-based feature selection for single-cell RNA sequencing data analysis

    Hao Huang et al. “Evaluation of deep learning-based feature selection for single-cell RNA sequencing data analysis”. In: Genome Biology 24.1 (2023), p. 259

    2023

  7. [15]

    Optimal Transport improves cell- cell similarity inference in single-cell omics data

    Geert-Jan Huizing, Gabriel Peyr´ e, and Laura Cantini. “Optimal Transport improves cell- cell similarity inference in single-cell omics data”. In: Bioinformatics (2022). btac084. issn: 1367-4803. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac084 . eprint: https://academic. oup.com/bioinform...

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Fully-automated and ultra-fast cell-type identification using specific marker combinations from single-cell transcriptomic data

    Aleksandr Ianevski, Anil K Giri, and Tero Aittokallio. “Fully-automated and ultra-fast cell-type identification using specific marker combinations from single-cell transcriptomic data”. In: Nature communications 13.1 (2022), p. 1246

    2022

  9. [17]

    Stalled developmental programs at the root of pediatric brain tumors

    Selin Jessa et al. “Stalled developmental programs at the root of pediatric brain tumors”. In: Nature genetics 51.12 (2019), pp. 1702–1713

    2019

  10. [18]

    Bayesian approach to single- cell differential expression analysis

    Peter V Kharchenko, Lev Silberstein, and David T Scadden. “Bayesian approach to single- cell differential expression analysis”. In: Nature methods 11.7 (2014), pp. 740–742

    2014

  11. [19]

    Analysis of Technical and Biological Variability in Single-Cell RNA Sequencing

    Beomseok Kim, Eunmin Lee, and Jong Kyoung Kim. “Analysis of Technical and Biological Variability in Single-Cell RNA Sequencing”. In: Computational Methods for Single-Cell Data Analysis . Ed. by Guo-Cheng Yuan. Humana New York, NY, Jan. 2019. Chap. 3, pp. 25–44. isbn: 978-1-493...

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Challenges in unsuper- vised clustering of single-cell RNA-seq data

    Vladimir Yu Kiselev, Tallulah S Andrews, and Martin Hemberg. “Challenges in unsuper- vised clustering of single-cell RNA-seq data”. In: Nature Reviews Genetics 20.5 (2019), pp. 273–282. 24

    2019

  13. [21]

    scmap - A tool for unsupervised projection of single cell RNA-seq data

    Vladimir Yu Kiselev, Andrew Yiu, and Martin Hemberg. “scmap - A tool for unsupervised projection of single cell RNA-seq data”. In: bioRxiv (2017). doi: 10.1101/150292. eprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/29/150292.full.pdf . url: https://www.biorxiv.org/conte...

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Broad immune activation underlies shared set point signatures for vaccine responsiveness in healthy individuals and disease activity in patients with lupus

    Yuri Kotliarov et al. “Broad immune activation underlies shared set point signatures for vaccine responsiveness in healthy individuals and disease activity in patients with lupus”. In: Nature Medicine 26.4 (2020), pp. 618–629

    2020

  15. [23]

    Single-cell transcriptomes identify human islet cell signatures and reveal cell-type–specific expression changes in type 2 diabetes

    Nathan Lawlor et al. “Single-cell transcriptomes identify human islet cell signatures and reveal cell-type–specific expression changes in type 2 diabetes”. In: Genome research 27.2 (2017), pp. 208–222

    2017

  16. [24]

    Machine learning for cell type classification from single nucleus RNA sequencing data

    Huy Le et al. “Machine learning for cell type classification from single nucleus RNA sequencing data”. In: Plos one 17.9 (2022), e0275070

    2022

  17. [25]

    Optimal Transport with Relaxed Marginal Constraints

    Jia Li and Lin Lin. “Optimal Transport with Relaxed Marginal Constraints”. English (US). In: IEEE Access 9 (2021), pp. 58142–58160.issn: 2169-3536. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS. 2021.3072613

    2021

  18. [26]

    A neural network-based method for exhaustive cell label assign- ment using single cell RNA-seq data

    Ziyi Li and Hao Feng. “A neural network-based method for exhaustive cell label assign- ment using single cell RNA-seq data”. In: Scientific reports 12.1 (2022), p. 910

    2022

  19. [27]

    Multisource single-cell data integration by MA W barycenter for Gaussian mixture models

    Lin Lin et al. “Multisource single-cell data integration by MA W barycenter for Gaussian mixture models”. In: Biometrics 79.2 (2023), pp. 866–877

    2023

  20. [28]

    A comparison of batch effect removal methods for enhancement of predic- tion performance using MAQC-II microarray gene expression data

    J Luo et al. “A comparison of batch effect removal methods for enhancement of predic- tion performance using MAQC-II microarray gene expression data”. In: The pharmacoge- nomics journal 10.4 (2010), pp. 278–291

    2010

  21. [29]

    Putative cell type discovery from single-cell gene expression data

    Zhichao Miao et al. “Putative cell type discovery from single-cell gene expression data”. In: Nature methods 17.6 (2020), pp. 621–628

    2020

  22. [30]

    Enabling reproducible re-analysis of single-cell data

    Jordan W. Squair Michael A. Skinnider and Gr´ egoire Courtine. “Enabling reproducible re-analysis of single-cell data”. In: Genome Biology 22.215 (2021). 25

    2021

  23. [31]

    Reproducibility of Methods to Detect Differentially Expressed Genes from Single-Cell RNA Sequencing

    Tian Mou et al. “Reproducibility of Methods to Detect Differentially Expressed Genes from Single-Cell RNA Sequencing”. In: Frontiers in Genetics 10 (2020). issn: 1664-8021. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01331 . url: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ 10.3389/fgene.2019.01331

    2020

  24. [32]

    QFMatch: multidimensional flow and mass cytometry samples alignment

    Darya Y. Orlova et al. “QFMatch: multidimensional flow and mass cytometry samples alignment”. In: Scientific Reports 8.3291 (2018). doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1038 / s41598-018-21444-4

    2018

  25. [33]

    A comparison of marker gene selection methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

    Jeffrey M Pullin and Davis J McCarthy. “A comparison of marker gene selection methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data”. In: Genome Biology 25.1 (2024), p. 56

    2024

  26. [34]

    PredGCN: a Pruning-enabled Gene-Cell Net for automatic cell annotation of single cell transcriptome data

    Qi Qi et al. “PredGCN: a Pruning-enabled Gene-Cell Net for automatic cell annotation of single cell transcriptome data”. In: Bioinformatics 40.7 (June 2024), btae421. issn: 1367-4811. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btae421 . eprint: https://academic.oup. com / bioinformatics / ar...

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Identification of cell-type-specific marker genes from co-expression patterns in tissue samples

    Yixuan Qiu et al. “Identification of cell-type-specific marker genes from co-expression patterns in tissue samples”. In: Bioinformatics 37.19 (2021), pp. 3228–3234

    2021

  28. [36]

    PIPET: predicting relevant subpopulations in single-cell data using phenotypic information from bulk data

    Xinjia Ruan et al. “PIPET: predicting relevant subpopulations in single-cell data using phenotypic information from bulk data”. In: Briefings in Bioinformatics 25.4 (2024), bbae260

    2024

  29. [37]

    Single-cell transcriptome profiling of human pancreatic islets in health and type 2 diabetes

    ˚Asa Segerstolpe et al. “Single-cell transcriptome profiling of human pancreatic islets in health and type 2 diabetes”. In: Cell metabolism 24.4 (2016), pp. 593–607

    2016

  30. [38]

    Exponential scaling of single-cell RNA-seq in the past decade

    Valentine Svensson, Roser Vento-Tormo, and Sarah A. Teichmann. “Exponential scaling of single-cell RNA-seq in the past decade”. In: Nature Protocols 13 (2018), pp. 599–604. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2017.149

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Adult mouse cortical cell taxonomy revealed by single cell transcrip- tomics

    Bosiljka Tasic et al. “Adult mouse cortical cell taxonomy revealed by single cell transcrip- tomics”. In: Nature neuroscience 19.2 (2016), pp. 335–346

    2016

  32. [40]

    A Survey on Optimal Transport for Machine Learning: Theory and Applications

    Luis Caicedo Torres, Luiz Manella Pereira, and Mohammad Hadi Amini. “A Survey on Optimal Transport for Machine Learning: Theory and Applications”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01963 (2021). arXiv: 2106.01963 [cs.LG]. 26

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Batch effects and the effective design of single-cell gene expression studies

    Po-Yuan Tung et al. “Batch effects and the effective design of single-cell gene expression studies”. In: Scientific reports 7.1 (2017), p. 39921

    2017

  34. [42]

    Identifying cell types to interpret scRNA-seq data: how, why and more possibilities

    Ziwei Wang, Hui Ding, and Quan Zou. “Identifying cell types to interpret scRNA-seq data: how, why and more possibilities”. In: Briefings in functional genomics 19.4 (2020), pp. 286–291

    2020

  35. [43]

    Accounting for cell type hierarchy in evaluating single cell RNA-seq clustering

    Zhijin Wu and Hao Wu. “Accounting for cell type hierarchy in evaluating single cell RNA-seq clustering”. In: Genome biology 21.1 (2020), pp. 1–14

    2020

  36. [44]

    Single-cell RNA sequencing to identify cellular heterogeneity and targets in cardiovascular diseases: from bench to bedside

    Xinjie Xu et al. “Single-cell RNA sequencing to identify cellular heterogeneity and targets in cardiovascular diseases: from bench to bedside”. In: Basic Research in Cardiology 118.1 (2023), p. 7

    2023

  37. [45]

    scBERT as a large-scale pretrained deep language model for cell type annotation of single-cell RNA-seq data

    Fan Yang et al. “scBERT as a large-scale pretrained deep language model for cell type annotation of single-cell RNA-seq data”. In: Nature Machine Intelligence 4.10 (2022), pp. 852–866

    2022

  38. [46]

    scMRA: a robust deep learning method to annotate scRNA-seq data with multiple reference datasets

    Musu Yuan, Liang Chen, and Minghua Deng. “scMRA: a robust deep learning method to annotate scRNA-seq data with multiple reference datasets”. In: Bioinformatics 38.3 (Oct. 2021), pp. 738–745. issn: 1367-4803. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab700 . eprint: https://academic.oup.co...

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    Multi-view clustering by CPS-merge analysis with application to multimodal single-cell data

    Lixiang Zhang, Lin Lin, and Jia Li. “Multi-view clustering by CPS-merge analysis with application to multimodal single-cell data”. In: PLoS computational biology 19.4 (2023), e1011044

    2023

  40. [48]

    BSDE: barycenter single-cell differential expression for case–control studies

    Mengqi Zhang and F Richard Guo. “BSDE: barycenter single-cell differential expression for case–control studies”. In: Bioinformatics 38.10 (2022), pp. 2765–2772

    2022

  41. [49]

    FR-Match: robust matching of cell type clusters from single cell RNA sequencing data using the Friedman–Rafsky non-parametric test

    Yun Zhang et al. “FR-Match: robust matching of cell type clusters from single cell RNA sequencing data using the Friedman–Rafsky non-parametric test”. In: Briefings in Bioin- formatics 22.4 (Nov. 2020). bbaa339. issn: 1477-4054. doi: 10 . 1093 / bib / bbaa339. eprint: https:/ ...

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the heterogeneity of liver- resident immune cells in human

    Juanjuan Zhao et al. “Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the heterogeneity of liver- resident immune cells in human”. In: Cell Discovery 6 (2020). doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41421-020-0157-z

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    Single-cell transcriptomics of human and mouse lung cancers reveals conserved myeloid populations across individuals and species

    Rapolas Zilionis et al. “Single-cell transcriptomics of human and mouse lung cancers reveals conserved myeloid populations across individuals and species”. In: Immunity 50.5 (2019), pp. 1317–1334. Supporting information S1 Appendix. This file includes a description of the basi...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.