MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386697768 · doi:10.1101/2023.09.11.556650

Penalised regression improves imputation of cell-type specific expression using RNA-seq data from mixed cell populations compared to domain-specific methods

2023· preprint· en· W4386697768 on OpenAlexaff
Wei‐Yu Lin, Melissa Kartawinata, Bethany R. Jebson, Restuadi Restuadi

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreVersus ArthritisMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsDeconvolutionBiologyComputational biologyImputation (statistics)Cell typeGene expressionCellGeneAlgorithmMissing dataComputer scienceGeneticsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gene expression studies often use bulk RNA sequencing of mixed cell populations because single cell or sorted cell sequencing may be prohibitively expensive. However, mixed cell studies may miss expression patterns that are restricted to specific cell populations. Computational deconvolution can be used to estimate cell fractions from bulk expression data and infer average cell-type expression in a set of samples (eg cases or controls), but imputing sample-level cell-type expression is required for more detailed analyses, such as relating expression to quantitative traits, and is less commonly addressed. Here, we assessed the accuracy of imputing sample-level cell-type expression using a real dataset where mixed peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and sorted (CD4, CD8, CD14, CD19) RNA sequencing data were generated from the same subjects (N=158), and pseudobulk datasets synthesised from eQTLgen single cell RNA-seq data. We compared three domain-specific methods, CIBERSORTx, bMIND and debCAM/swCAM, and two cross-domain machine learning methods, multiple response LASSO and ridge, that had not been used for this task before. We also assessed the methods according to their ability to recover differential gene expression (DGE) results. LASSO/ridge showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity for recovering DGE signals seen in observed data compared to deconvolution methods, although LASSO/ridge had higher area under curves than deconvolution methods. Machine learning methods have the potential to outperform domain-specific methods when suitable training data are available. Author Summary Numerous studies have demonstrated that gene expression in particular subsets of immune cells plays a critical role in the development of diseases and response to treatment. By profiling gene expression from these cells, we can identify disease-relevant genes, comprehend their functions in the disease or response to treatment, and potentially pave the way for screening and patient stratification for prevention and treatment. However, the current cost of single-cell RNA sequencing is too high for large-scale expression profiling analysis. Therefore, an alternative approach is to computationally estimate cell-type specific expression from mixed cell populations, which has been less explored in the field. With this in mind, we proposed using machine learning approaches, multiple response LASSO and ridge, and applied them to synthesised datasets and real-world data where gene expression was measured in mixed and pure cell populations of the same subjects. We compared them to standard methods in the field, and evaluated the accuracy of predicted expression as well as the ability to reconstruct differentially expressed gene signals. Our results revealed that the LASSO/ridge algorithms performed better than existing methods in recovering differentially expressed gene signals, highlighting their potential applications to impute the cell-type expression.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207