MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3015967457 · doi:10.1101/2020.04.13.035386

Single nucleus sequencing fails to detect microglial activation in human tissue

2020· preprint· en· W3015967457 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondation pour la Recherche sur AlzheimerFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekVlaamse regeringEuropean CommissionUK Dementia Research InstituteKU LeuvenNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAlzheimer SocietyImperial College LondonMedical Research CouncilAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsMicrogliaHuman brainSingle-cell analysisNucleusTranscriptomePopulationCellCell nucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Single nucleus RNA-Seq (snRNA-Seq) methods are used as an alternative to single cell RNA-Seq methods, as they allow transcriptomic profiling of frozen tissue. However, it is unclear whether snRNA-Seq is able to detect cellular state in human tissue. Indeed, snRNA-Seq analyses of human brain samples have failed to detect a consistent microglial activation signature in Alzheimer’s Disease. A comparison of microglia from single cells and single nuclei of four human subjects reveals that ~1% of genes is depleted in nuclei compared to whole cells. This small population contains 18% of genes previously implicated in microglial activation, including APOE, CST3, FTL, SPP1 , and CD74 . We confirm our findings across multiple previous single nucleus and single cell studies. Given the low sensitivity of snRNA-Seq to this population of activation genes, we conclude that snRNA-Seq is not suited to detecting cellular activation in microglia in human disease.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→