↓ Skip to main content

Genotype-free demultiplexing of pooled single-cell RNA-seq

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
47 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genotype-free demultiplexing of pooled single-cell RNA-seq
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), December 2019
DOI 10.1186/s13059-019-1852-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Xu, Caitlin Falconer, Quan Nguyen, Joanna Crawford, Brett D. McKinnon, Sally Mortlock, Anne Senabouth, Stacey Andersen, Han Sheng Chiu, Longda Jiang, Nathan J. Palpant, Jian Yang, Michael D. Mueller, Alex W. Hewitt, Alice Pébay, Grant W. Montgomery, Joseph E. Powell, Lachlan J.M Coin

Abstract

A variety of methods have been developed to demultiplex pooled samples in a single cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) experiment which either require hashtag barcodes or sample genotypes prior to pooling. We introduce scSplit which utilizes genetic differences inferred from scRNA-seq data alone to demultiplex pooled samples. scSplit also enables mapping clusters to original samples. Using simulated, merged, and pooled multi-individual datasets, we show that scSplit prediction is highly concordant with demuxlet predictions and is highly consistent with the known truth in cell-hashing dataset. scSplit is ideally suited to samples without external genotype information and is available at: https://github.com/jon-xu/scSplit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 25%
Computer Science 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 11 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 04 January 2020.
All research outputs
#837,778
of 15,925,089 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#813
of 3,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,336
of 362,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#129
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,925,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,414 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 362,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.