Deconvolution of Sample Identity in Single-Cell RNA Sequencing <i>via</i> Genome Imputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Droplet based single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) is a powerful tool for measuring RNA abundance profiles at cell-specific resolution. Droplet-based barcoding technology allows sample multiplexing, thereby facilitating high-scale of single cell sequencing. The resulting processing complexity, sample contamination and the underlying chemistries can all contribute to cell mis-labelling and consequent spurious cell-to-sample assignment. Approaches for barcode-free de-multiplexing which leverage natural genetic variation have been developed, but generally require an external source of genotype information. Results We propose a novel method to exploit genome imputation and clustering to assign cells to inferred donor groups in the absence of a priori genetic information. Using tumor-derived single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, our workflow successfully assigned individual cells to donor-of-origin with high concordance. Conclusions This imputation-clustering approach represents a quality-assessment and quality-control strategy for barcode-free single cell donor-origin deconvolution with the capacity to resolve cases of sample cross-contamination.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".