↓ Skip to main content

Identification of innate lymphoid cells in single-cell RNA-Seq data

Overview of attention for article published in Immunogenetics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
Identification of innate lymphoid cells in single-cell RNA-Seq data
Published in
Immunogenetics, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00251-017-1002-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madeleine Suffiotti, Santiago J. Carmona, Camilla Jandus, David Gfeller

Abstract

Innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) consist of natural killer (NK) cells and non-cytotoxic ILCs that are broadly classified into ILC1, ILC2, and ILC3 subtypes. These cells recently emerged as important early effectors of innate immunity for their roles in tissue homeostasis and inflammation. Over the last few years, ILCs have been extensively studied in mouse and human at the functional and molecular level, including gene expression profiling. However, sorting ILCs with flow cytometry for gene expression analysis is a delicate and time-consuming process. Here we propose and validate a novel framework for studying ILCs at the transcriptomic level using single-cell RNA-Seq data. Our approach combines unsupervised clustering and a new cell type classifier trained on mouse ILC gene expression data. We show that this approach can accurately identify different ILCs, especially ILC2 cells, in human lymphocyte single-cell RNA-Seq data. Our new model relies only on genes conserved across vertebrates, thereby making it in principle applicable in any vertebrate species. Considering the rapid increase in throughput of single-cell RNA-Seq technology, our work provides a computational framework for studying ILC2 cells in single-cell transcriptomic data and may help exploring their conservation in distant vertebrate species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 25 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 10%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,605,229
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Immunogenetics
#268
of 1,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,638
of 317,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Immunogenetics
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,221 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.