Search

Background: Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) technology has enabled assessment of transcriptome-wide changes at single-cell resolution. Due to the heterogeneity in environmental exposure and genetic background across subjects, subject effect contributes to the major source of variation in scRNA-seq data with multiple subjects, which severely confounds cell type specific differential expression (DE) analysis. Moreover, dropout events are prevalent in scRNA-seq data, leading to excessive number of zeroes in the data, which further aggravates the challenge in DE analysis. Results: We developed iDESC to detect cell type specific DE genes between two groups of subjects in scRNA-seq data. iDESC uses a zero-inflated negative binomial mixed model to consider both subject effect and dropouts. The prevalence of dropout events (dropout rate) was demonstrated to be dependent on gene expression level, which is modeled by pooling information across genes. Subject effect is modeled as a random effect in the log-mean of the negative binomial component. We evaluated and compared the performance of iDESC with eleven existing DE analysis methods. Using simulated data, we demonstrated that iDESC had well-controlled type I error and higher power compared to the existing methods. Applications of those methods with well-controlled type I error to three real scRNA-seq datasets from the same tissue and disease showed that the results of iDESC achieved the best consistency between datasets and the best disease relevance. Conclusions: iDESC was able to achieve more accurate and robust DE analysis results by separating subject effect from disease effect with consideration of dropouts to identify DE genes, suggesting the importance of considering subject effect and dropouts in the DE analysis of scRNA-seq data with multiple subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reference 1 Liu Y. iDESC: identifying differential expression in single-cell RNA sequencing data with multiple subjects. Correction: iDESC: identifying differential expression in single-cell RNA sequencing data with multiple subjects. [Extracted from the article]

Distance based unsupervised clustering of gene expression data is commonly used to identify heterogeneity in biologic samples. However, high noise levels in gene expression data and relatively high correlation between genes are often encountered, so traditional distances such as Euclidean distance may not be effective at discriminating the biological differences between samples. An alternative method to examine disease phenotypes is to use pre-defined biological pathways. These pathways have been shown to be perturbed in different ways in different subjects who have similar clinical features. We hypothesize that differences in the expressions of genes in a given pathway are more predictive of differences in biological differences compared to standard approaches and if integrated into clustering analysis will enhance the robustness and accuracy of the clustering method. To examine this hypothesis, we developed a novel computational method to assess the biological differences between samples using gene expression data by assuming that ontologically defined biological pathways in biologically similar samples have similar behavior. Results: Pre-defined biological pathways were downloaded and genes in each pathway were used to cluster samples using the Gaussian mixture model. The clustering results across different pathways were then summarized to calculate the pathway-based distance score between samples. This method was applied to both simulated and real data sets and compared to the traditional Euclidean distance and another pathway-based clustering method, Pathifier. The results show that the pathway-based distance score performs significantly better than the Euclidean distance, especially when the heterogeneity is low and genes in the same pathways are correlated. Compared to Pathifier, we demonstrated that our approach achieves higher accuracy and robustness for small pathways. When the pathway size is large, by downsampling the pathways into smaller pathways, our approach was able to achieve comparable performance. Conclusions: We have developed a novel distance score that represents the biological differences between samples using gene expression data and pre-defined biological pathway information. Application of this distance score results in more accurate, robust, and biologically meaningful clustering results in both simulated data and real data when compared to traditional methods. It also has comparable or better performance compared to Pathifier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]