RNA-Bloom enables reference-free and reference-guided sequence assembly for single-cell transcriptomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the rapid advance in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) technologies within the last decade, single-cell transcriptome analysis workflows have primarily used gene expression data while isoform sequence analysis at the single-cell level still remains fairly limited. Detection and discovery of isoforms in single cells is difficult because of the inherent technical shortcomings of scRNA-seq data, and existing transcriptome assembly methods are mainly designed for bulk RNA samples. To address this challenge, we developed RNA-Bloom, an assembly algorithm that leverages the rich information content aggregated from multiple single-cell transcriptomes to reconstruct cell-specific isoforms. Assembly with RNA-Bloom can be either reference-guided or reference-free, thus enabling unbiased discovery of novel isoforms or foreign transcripts. We compared both assembly strategies of RNA-Bloom against five state-of-the-art reference-free and reference-based transcriptome assembly methods. In our benchmarks on a simulated 384-cell data set, reference-free RNA-Bloom reconstructed 37.9%-38.3% more isoforms than the best reference-free assembler, whereas reference-guided RNA-Bloom reconstructed 4.1%-11.6% more isoforms than reference-based assemblers. When applied to a real 3840-cell data set consisting of more than 4 billion reads, RNA-Bloom reconstructed 9.7%-25.0% more isoforms than the best competing reference-based and reference-free approaches evaluated. We expect RNA-Bloom to boost the utility of scRNA-seq data beyond gene expression analysis, expanding what is informatically accessible now.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".