About This Document »
Package name | simpleSingleCell |
Built with Bioconductor (R) | 3.6 (3.4.2) |
Last Built | Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:26:00 -0800 |
Last Modified | Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:47:50 -0800 (r132255) |
Source Package | simpleSingleCell_1.0.5.tar.gz |
R Script | part1.R |
To install this workflow under Bioconductor 3.7, start R and enter:
source("https://bioconductor.org/biocLite.R") biocLite("simpleSingleCell")
Table of Contents
Setting up the data
Top
In this workflow, we use a relatively simple dataset (A. T. L. Lun et al. 2017) to introduce most of the concepts of scRNA-seq data analysis. This dataset contains two plates of 416B cells (an immortalized mouse myeloid progenitor cell line), processed using the Smart-seq2 protocol (Picelli et al. 2014). A constant amount of spike-in RNA from the External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) was also added to each cell’s lysate prior to library preparation. High-throughput sequencing was performed and the expression of each gene was quantified by counting the total number of reads mapped to its exonic regions. Similarly, the quantity of each spike-in transcript was measured by counting the number of reads mapped to the spike-in reference sequences. Counts for all genes/transcripts in each cell were obtained from ArrayExpress using the accession number E-MTAB-5522.
Table of Contents
Quality control on the cells
Overview
Top
Incorporating cell-based annotation
Our first task is to load the count matrices into memory. One matrix was generated for each plate of cells used in the study. In each matrix, each row represents an endogenous gene or a spike-in transcript, and each column represents a cell. Subsequently, the count in each entry of the matrix represents the number of reads mapped to a particular gene/transcript in a particular cell.
plate1 <- read.delim("counts_Calero_20160113.tsv",
header=TRUE, row.names=1, check.names=FALSE)
plate2 <- read.delim("counts_Calero_20160325.tsv",
header=TRUE, row.names=1, check.names=FALSE)
gene.lengths <- plate1$Length # First column is the gene length.
plate1 <- as.matrix(plate1[,-1]) # Discarding gene length (as it is not a cell).
plate2 <- as.matrix(plate2[,-1])
rbind(Plate1=dim(plate1), Plate2=dim(plate2))
## [,1] [,2]
## Plate1 46703 96
## Plate2 46703 96
We combine the two matrices into a single object for further processing. This is done after verifying that the genes are in the same order between the two matrices.
stopifnot(identical(rownames(plate1), rownames(plate2)))
all.counts <- cbind(plate1, plate2)
For convenience, the count matrix is stored in a SingleCellExperiment
object from the SingleCellExperiment package. This allows different types of row- and column-level metadata to be stored alongside the counts for synchronized manipulation throughout the workflow.
library(SingleCellExperiment)
sce <- SingleCellExperiment(list(counts=all.counts))
rowData(sce)$GeneLength <- gene.lengths
sce
## class: SingleCellExperiment
## dim: 46703 192
## metadata(0):
## assays(1): counts
## rownames(46703): ENSMUSG00000102693 ENSMUSG00000064842 ... SIRV7
## CBFB-MYH11-mcherry
## rowData names(1): GeneLength
## colnames(192): SLX-9555.N701_S502.C89V9ANXX.s_1.r_1
## SLX-9555.N701_S503.C89V9ANXX.s_1.r_1 ...
## SLX-11312.N712_S508.H5H5YBBXX.s_8.r_1
## SLX-11312.N712_S517.H5H5YBBXX.s_8.r_1
## colData names(0):
## reducedDimNames(0):
## spikeNames(0):
We identify the rows corresponding to ERCC spike-in transcripts from the row names. We store this information in the SingleCellExperiment
object for future use. This is necessary as spike-ins require special treatment in downstream steps such as normalization.
isSpike(sce, "ERCC") <- grepl("^ERCC", rownames(sce))
summary(isSpike(sce, "ERCC"))
## Mode FALSE TRUE
## logical 46611 92
This dataset is slightly unusual in that it contains information from another set of spike-in transcripts, the Spike-In RNA Variants (SIRV) set. For simplicity, we will only use the ERCC spike-ins in this analysis. Thus, we must remove the rows corresponding to the SIRV transcripts prior to further analysis, which can be done simply by subsetting the SingleCellExperiment
object.
is.sirv <- grepl("^SIRV", rownames(sce))
sce <- sce[!is.sirv,]
summary(is.sirv)
## Mode FALSE TRUE
## logical 46696 7
Comments from Aaron:
colData
) prior to further analyses.^ERCC
regular expression for human data where the row names of the count matrix are gene symbols. An ERCC gene family actually exists in human annotation, so this would result in incorrect identification of genes as spike-in transcripts. This problem can be avoided by publishing count matrices with standard identifiers (e.g., Ensembl, Entrez).Table of Contents
Incorporating gene-based annotation
Loading in the count matrix
Setting up the data
We load in the metadata for each library/cell from the sdrf.txt
file. It is important to check that the rows of the metadata table are in the same order as the columns of the count matrix. Otherwise, incorrect metadata will be assigned to each cell.
metadata <- read.delim("E-MTAB-5522.sdrf.txt", check.names=FALSE, header=TRUE)
m <- match(colnames(sce), metadata[["Source Name"]]) # Enforcing identical order.
stopifnot(all(!is.na(m))) # Checking that nothing's missing.
metadata <- metadata[m,]
head(colnames(metadata))
## [1] "Source Name" "Comment[ENA_SAMPLE]"
## [3] "Comment[BioSD_SAMPLE]" "Characteristics[organism]"
## [5] "Characteristics[cell line]" "Characteristics[cell type]"
We only retain relevant metadata fields to avoid storing unnecessary information in the colData
of the SingleCellExperiment
object. In particular, we keep the plate of origin (i.e., block
) and phenotype of each cell. The second field is relevant as all of the cells contain a CBFB-MYH11 oncogene, but the expression of this oncogene is only induced in a subset of the cells.
colData(sce)$Plate <- factor(metadata[["Factor Value[block]"]])
pheno <- metadata[["Factor Value[phenotype]"]]
levels(pheno) <- c("induced", "control")
colData(sce)$Oncogene <- pheno
table(colData(sce)$Oncogene, colData(sce)$Plate)
##
## 20160113 20160325
## induced 48 48
## control 48 48
Table of Contents
Incorporating cell-based annotation
Setting up the data
Feature-counting tools typically report genes in terms of standard identifiers from Ensembl or Entrez. These identifiers are used as they are unambiguous and highly stable. However, they are difficult to interpret compared to the gene symbols which are more commonly used in the literature. Given the Ensembl identifiers, we obtain the corresponding gene symbols using annotation packages like org.Mm.eg.db.
library(org.Mm.eg.db)
symb <- mapIds(org.Mm.eg.db, keys=rownames(sce), keytype="ENSEMBL", column="SYMBOL")
rowData(sce)$ENSEMBL <- rownames(sce)
rowData(sce)$SYMBOL <- symb
head(rowData(sce))
## DataFrame with 6 rows and 3 columns
## GeneLength ENSEMBL SYMBOL
## <integer> <character> <character>
## 1 1070 ENSMUSG00000102693 NA
## 2 110 ENSMUSG00000064842 NA
## 3 6094 ENSMUSG00000051951 Xkr4
## 4 480 ENSMUSG00000102851 NA
## 5 2819 ENSMUSG00000103377 NA
## 6 2233 ENSMUSG00000104017 NA
It is often desirable to rename the row names of sce
to the gene symbols, as these are easier to interpret. However, this requires some work to account for missing and duplicate symbols. The code below will replace missing symbols with the Ensembl identifier and concatenate duplicated symbols with the (unique) Ensembl identifiers.
new.names <- rowData(sce)$SYMBOL
missing.name <- is.na(new.names)
new.names[missing.name] <- rowData(sce)$ENSEMBL[missing.name]
dup.name <- new.names %in% new.names[duplicated(new.names)]
new.names[dup.name] <- paste0(new.names, "_", rowData(sce)$ENSEMBL)[dup.name]
rownames(sce) <- new.names
head(rownames(sce))
## [1] "ENSMUSG00000102693" "ENSMUSG00000064842" "Xkr4"
## [4] "ENSMUSG00000102851" "ENSMUSG00000103377" "ENSMUSG00000104017"
We also determine the chromosomal location for each gene using the TxDb.Mmusculus.UCSC.mm10.ensGene package. This will be useful later as several quality control metrics will be computed from rows corresponding to mitochondrial genes.
library(TxDb.Mmusculus.UCSC.mm10.ensGene)
location <- mapIds(TxDb.Mmusculus.UCSC.mm10.ensGene, keys=rowData(sce)$ENSEMBL,
column="CDSCHROM", keytype="GENEID")
rowData(sce)$CHR <- location
summary(location=="chrM")
## Mode FALSE TRUE NA's
## logical 22428 13 24255
Alternatively, annotation from BioMart resources can be directly added to the object using the getBMFeatureAnnos
function from scater. This may be more convenient than the approach shown above, but depends on an available internet connection to the BioMart databases.
Table of Contents
Classification of cell cycle phase
Setting up the data
Top
Identifying outliers for each metric
Low-quality cells need to be removed to ensure that technical effects do not distort downstream analysis results. We use several quality control (QC) metrics:
For each cell, we calculate these quality control metrics using the calculateQCMetrics
function from the scater package (???). These are stored in the row- and column-wise metadata of the SingleCellExperiment
for future reference.
library(scater)
sce <- calculateQCMetrics(sce, feature_controls=list(ERCC=isSpike(sce),
Mt=which(rowData(sce)$CHR=="chrM")))
head(colnames(colData(sce)), 10)
## [1] "Plate" "Oncogene"
## [3] "total_features" "log10_total_features"
## [5] "total_counts" "log10_total_counts"
## [7] "pct_counts_top_50_features" "pct_counts_top_100_features"
## [9] "pct_counts_top_200_features" "pct_counts_top_500_features"
The distributions of these metrics are shown in Figure 1. The aim is to remove putative low-quality cells that have low library sizes, low numbers of expressed features, and high spike-in (or mitochondrial) proportions.
par(mfrow=c(2,2), mar=c(5.1, 4.1, 0.1, 0.1))
hist(sce$total_counts/1e6, xlab="Library size (millions)", main="",
breaks=20, col="grey80", ylab="Number of cells")
hist(sce$total_features, xlab="Number of expressed genes", main="",
breaks=20, col="grey80", ylab="Number of cells")
hist(sce$pct_counts_ERCC, xlab="ERCC proportion (%)",
ylab="Number of cells", breaks=20, main="", col="grey80")
hist(sce$pct_counts_Mt, xlab="Mitochondrial proportion (%)",
ylab="Number of cells", breaks=20, main="", col="grey80")
Figure 1: Histograms of various QC metrics for all cells in the 416B data set. This includes the library sizes, number of expressed genes, and proportion of reads mapped to spike-in transcripts or mitochondrial genes.
It is also valuable to examine how the QC metrics behave with respect to each other (Figure 2). Generally, they will be in rough agreement, i.e., cells with low total counts will also have low numbers of expressed features and high ERCC/mitochondrial proportions. Clear discrepancies may correspond to technical differences between batches of cells (see below) or genuine biological differences in RNA content.
par(mfrow=c(1,3))
plot(sce$total_features, sce$total_counts/1e6, xlab="Number of expressed genes",
ylab="Library size (millions)")
plot(sce$total_features, sce$pct_counts_ERCC, xlab="Number of expressed genes",
ylab="ERCC proportion (%)")
plot(sce$total_features, sce$pct_counts_Mt, xlab="Number of expressed genes",
ylab="Mitochondrial proportion (%)")
Figure 2: Behaviour of each QC metric compared to the total number of expressed features. Each point represents a cell in the 416B dataset.
Table of Contents
Assumptions of outlier identification
Defining the quality control metrics
Quality control on the cells
Picking a threshold for these metrics is not straightforward as their absolute values depend on the experimental protocol. For example, sequencing to greater depth will lead to more reads and more expressed features, regardless of the quality of the cells. Similarly, using more spike-in RNA in the protocol will result in higher spike-in proportions. To obtain an adaptive threshold, we assume that most of the dataset consists of high-quality cells, and identify cells that are outliers for the various QC metrics.
Outliers are defined based on the median absolute deviation (MADs) from the median value of each metric across all cells. We remove cells with log-library sizes that are more than 3 MADs below the median log-library size. A log-transformation improves resolution at small values, especially when the MAD of the raw values is comparable to or greater than the median. We also remove cells where the log-transformed number of expressed genes is 3 MADs below the median value.
libsize.drop <- isOutlier(sce$total_counts, nmads=3, type="lower", log=TRUE)
feature.drop <- isOutlier(sce$total_features, nmads=3, type="lower", log=TRUE)
We identify outliers for the proportion-based metrics in a similar manner. Here, no transformation is required as we are identifying large outliers, for which the distinction should be fairly clear on the raw scale. (We do not use the mitochondrial proportions as we already have the spike-in proportions for this data set. This avoids potential problems with genuine differences in mitochondrial content between cell types that may confound outlier identification.)
spike.drop <- isOutlier(sce$pct_counts_ERCC, nmads=3, type="higher")
Subsetting by column will retain only the high-quality cells that pass each filter described above. We examine the number of cells removed by each filter as well as the total number of retained cells. Removal of a substantial proportion of cells (> 10%) may be indicative of an overall issue with data quality.
keep <- !(libsize.drop | feature.drop | spike.drop)
data.frame(ByLibSize=sum(libsize.drop), ByFeature=sum(feature.drop),
BySpike=sum(spike.drop), Remaining=sum(keep))
## ByLibSize ByFeature BySpike Remaining
## 1 4 0 1 188
At this point, we could apply keep
to subset sce
to only retain high-quality cells. However, the above approach ignores prior information about the cells, which can be incorporated to improve the filtering procedure. We describe why this is important and how it can be achieved in the following sections.
Table of Contents
Blocking on known conditions
Identifying outliers for each metric
Quality control on the cells
We have already mentioned the assumption that most cells are of high quality. This is usually reasonable, and can be experimentally supported in some situations by visually checking that the cells are intact (e.g., on the microwell plate or in the microfluidics system). Another assumption is that the QC metrics are independent on the biological state of each cell. This ensures that any outlier values for these metrics are driven by technical factors rather than biological processes. Thus, removing cells based on the metrics will not misrepresent the biology in downstream analyses.
The second assumption is most likely to be violated in highly heterogeneous cell populations. For example, some cell types may naturally have less RNA or express fewer genes than other cell types. Such cell types are more likely to be considered outliers and removed, even if they are of high quality. The use of the MAD mitigates this problem by accounting for biological variability in the QC metrics. A heterogeneous population should have higher variability in the metrics among high-quality cells, increasing the MAD and reducing the chance of incorrectly removing particular cell types (at the cost of reducing power to remove low-quality cells). Nonetheless, filtering based on outliers may not be appropriate in extreme cases where one cell type is very different from the others.
We can explore the effect of known biological factors on the QC metrics using the plotPhenoData
function. Figure 3 demonstrates that induction of the CBFB-MYH11 oncogene results in some modest changes to the QC metric distributions. This suggests that we could improve our QC step by considering the condition of the cell during outlier identification. Analyzing all conditions together would unnecessarily inflate the MAD and compromise the removal of low-quality cells.
multiplot(
plotPhenoData(sce, aes_string(y="total_counts", x="Oncogene")),
plotPhenoData(sce, aes_string(y="total_features", x="Oncogene")),
plotPhenoData(sce, aes_string(y="pct_counts_ERCC", x="Oncogene")),
plotPhenoData(sce, aes_string(y="pct_counts_Mt", x="Oncogene")),
cols=2)
Figure 3: Distribution of each QC metric for control and oncogene-induced cells in the 416B data set.
Table of Contents
Assumptions of outlier identification
Quality control on the cells
Systematic differences in the QC metrics can be handled to some extent using the batch
argument in the isOutlier
function. Setting batch
to the plate of origin will identify outliers within each level of batch
, using plate-specific median and MAD estimates. This is obviously useful for batch effects caused by known differences in experimental processing, e.g., sequencing at different depth or had different amounts of spike-in added. We can also include known biological factors in batch
, if those factors could result in systematically fewer expressed genes or lower RNA content.
blocking <- paste0(sce$Plate, sce$Oncogene)
libsize.drop2 <- isOutlier(sce$total_counts, nmads=3, type="lower",
log=TRUE, batch=blocking)
feature.drop2 <- isOutlier(sce$total_features, nmads=3, type="lower",
log=TRUE, batch=blocking)
spike.drop2 <- isOutlier(sce$pct_counts_ERCC, nmads=3, type="higher",
batch=blocking)
keep2 <- !(libsize.drop2 | feature.drop2 | spike.drop2)
data.frame(ByLibSize=sum(libsize.drop2), ByFeature=sum(feature.drop2),
BySpike=sum(spike.drop2), Remaining=sum(keep2))
## ByLibSize ByFeature BySpike Remaining
## 1 5 4 6 183
The use of this blocking approach results in a small increase in the number of discarded cells. This is expected given that the variability within each level of batch
is lower, resulting in more power to detect outliers. We then subset the SingleCellExperiment
object to retain only the putative high-quality cells.
sce <- sce[,keep2]
dim(sce)
## [1] 46696 183
Table of Contents
Examining gene-level expression metrics
Quality control on the cells
Top
We use the prediction method described by Scialdone et al. (2015) to classify cells into cell cycle phases based on the gene expression data. Using a training dataset, the sign of the difference in expression between two genes was computed for each pair of genes. Pairs with changes in the sign across cell cycle phases were chosen as markers. Cells in a test dataset can then be classified into the appropriate phase, based on whether the observed sign for each marker pair is consistent with one phase or another.
This approach is implemented in the cyclone
function from the scran package. The package contains a pre-trained set of marker pairs for mouse data, which we can load in the the readRDS
function. We use the Ensembl identifiers for each gene in our data set to match up with the names in the pre-trained set of gene pairs.
set.seed(100)
library(scran)
mm.pairs <- readRDS(system.file("exdata", "mouse_cycle_markers.rds",
package="scran"))
assignments <- cyclone(sce, mm.pairs, gene.names=rowData(sce)$ENSEMBL)
The cyclone
result for each cell in the HSC dataset is shown in Figure 4. Each cell is assigned a score for each phase, with a higher score corresponding to a higher probability that the cell is in that phase. We focus on the G1 and G2/M scores as these are the most informative for classification.
plot(assignments$score$G1, assignments$score$G2M,
xlab="G1 score", ylab="G2/M score", pch=16)
Figure 4: Cell cycle phase scores from applying the pair-based classifier on the 416B dataset. Each point represents a cell, plotted according to its scores for G1 and G2/M phases.
Cells are classified as being in G1 phase if the G1 score is above 0.5 and greater than the G2/M score; in G2/M phase if the G2/M score is above 0.5 and greater than the G1 score; and in S phase if neither score is above 0.5. Here, the vast majority of cells are classified as being in G1 phase. We save these assignments into the SingleCellExperiment
object for later use.
sce$phases <- assignments$phases
table(sce$phases)
##
## G1 G2M S
## 99 62 22
Pre-trained classifiers are available in scran for human and mouse data. While the mouse classifier used here was trained on data from embryonic stem cells, it is still accurate for other cell types (Scialdone et al. 2015). This may be due to the conservation of the transcriptional program associated with the cell cycle (Bertoli, Skotheim, and Bruin 2013; Conboy et al. 2007). The pair-based method is also a non-parametric procedure that is robust to most technical differences between datasets.
Comments from Aaron:
sandbag
function. This will also be necessary for other model organisms where pre-trained classifiers are not available.cyclone
. Even if a gene is not expressed in any cell, it may still be useful for classification if it is phase-specific. Its lack of expression relative to other genes will still yield informative pairs, and filtering them out would reduce power.Table of Contents
Normalization of cell-specific biases
Classification of cell cycle phase
Top
Filtering out low-abundance genes
We examine the identities of the most highly expressed genes (Figure 5). This should generally be dominated by constitutively expressed transcripts, such as those for ribosomal or mitochondrial proteins. The presence of other classes of features may be cause for concern if they are not consistent with expected biology. For example, a top set containing many spike-in transcripts suggests that too much spike-in RNA was added during library preparation, while the absence of ribosomal proteins and/or the presence of their pseudogenes are indicative of suboptimal alignment.
fontsize <- theme(axis.text=element_text(size=12), axis.title=element_text(size=16))
plotQC(sce, type = "highest-expression", n=50) + fontsize
Figure 5: Percentage of total counts assigned to the top 50 most highly-abundant features in the 416B dataset. For each feature, each bar represents the percentage assigned to that feature for a single cell, while the circle represents the average across all cells. Bars are coloured by the total number of expressed features in each cell, while circles are coloured according to whether the feature is labelled as a control feature.
Table of Contents
Inspecting the most highly expressed genes
Examining gene-level expression metrics
Low-abundance genes are problematic as zero or near-zero counts do not contain much information for reliable statistical inference (Bourgon, Gentleman, and Huber 2010). These genes typically do not provide enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis during testing, yet they still increase the severity of the multiple testing correction. In addition, the discreteness of the counts may interfere with statistical procedures, e.g., by compromising the accuracy of continuous approximations. Thus, low-abundance genes are often removed in many RNA-seq analysis pipelines before the application of downstream methods.
The “optimal” choice of filtering strategy depends on the downstream application. A more aggressive filter is usually required to remove discreteness (e.g., for normalization) compared to that required for removing underpowered tests. For hypothesis testing, the filter statistic should also be independent of the test statistic under the null hypothesis. Thus, we (or the relevant function) will filter at each step as needed, rather than applying a single filter for the entire analysis.
Several metrics can be used to define low-abundance genes. The most obvious is the average count for each gene, computed across all cells in the data set. We calculate this using the calcAverage
function, which also performs some adjustment for library size differences between cells We typically observe a peak of moderately expressed genes following a plateau of lowly expressed genes (Figure 6).
ave.counts <- calcAverage(sce)
hist(log10(ave.counts), breaks=100, main="", col="grey80",
xlab=expression(Log[10]~"average count"))
Figure 6: Histogram of log-average counts for all genes in the 416B dataset.
A minimum threshold can be applied to this value to filter out genes that are lowly expressed. The example below demonstrates how we could remove genes with average counts less than 1. The number of TRUE
values in demo.keep
corresponds to the number of retained rows/genes after filtering.
demo.keep <- ave.counts >= 1
filtered.sce <- sce[demo.keep,]
summary(demo.keep)
## Mode FALSE TRUE
## logical 33490 13206
We also examine the number of cells that express each gene. This is closely related to the average count for most genes, as expression in many cells will result in a higher average (Figure 7). Genes expressed in very few cells are often uninteresting as they are driven by amplification artifacts (though they may also also arise from rare populations). We could then remove genes that are expressed in fewer than n cells.
num.cells <- nexprs(sce, byrow=TRUE)
smoothScatter(log10(ave.counts), num.cells, ylab="Number of cells",
xlab=expression(Log[10]~"average count"))
Figure 7: The number of cells expressing each gene in the 416B data set, plotted against the log-average count. Intensity of colour corresponds to the number of genes at any given location.
As mentioned above, we will apply these filters at each step rather than applying them globally by subsetting sce
. This ensures that the most appropriate filter is used in each application. Nonetheless, we remove genes that are not expressed in any cell to reduce computational work in downstream steps. Such genes provide no information and would be removed by any filtering strategy.
to.keep <- num.cells > 0
sce <- sce[to.keep,]
summary(to.keep)
## Mode FALSE TRUE
## logical 22833 23863
Table of Contents
Modelling the technical noise in gene expression
Examining gene-level expression metrics
Top
Computing separate size factors for spike-in transcripts
Read counts are subject to differences in capture efficiency and sequencing depth between cells (Stegle, Teichmann, and Marioni 2015). Normalization is required to eliminate these cell-specific biases prior to downstream quantitative analyses. This is often done by assuming that most genes are not differentially expressed (DE) between cells. Any systematic difference in count size across the non-DE majority of genes between two cells is assumed to represent bias and is removed by scaling. More specifically, “size factors” are calculated that represent the extent to which counts should be scaled in each library.
Size factors can be computed with several different approaches, e.g., using the estimateSizeFactorsFromMatrix
function in the DESeq2 package (Anders and Huber 2010; Love, Huber, and Anders 2014), or with the calcNormFactors
function (Robinson and Oshlack 2010) in the edgeR package. However, single-cell data can be problematic for these bulk data-based methods due to the dominance of low and zero counts. To overcome this, we pool counts from many cells to increase the count size for accurate size factor estimation (A. T. Lun, Bach, and Marioni 2016). Pool-based size factors are then “deconvolved” into cell-based factors for cell-specific normalization.
sce <- computeSumFactors(sce)
summary(sizeFactors(sce))
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
## 0.3432 0.7287 0.9224 1.0000 1.1485 3.5348
The size factors are well-correlated with the library sizes for all cells (Figure 8). This suggests that most of the systematic differences between cells are driven by differences in capture efficiency or sequencing depth. Any DE between cells would yield a non-linear trend between the total count and size factor, and/or increased scatter around the trend. We observe some evidence of this after oncogene induction, where the size factors after induction are systematically lower. This is consistent with composition biases (Robinson and Oshlack 2010) introduced by upregulation of genes after induction.
plot(sce$total_counts/1e6, sizeFactors(sce), log="xy",
xlab="Library size (millions)", ylab="Size factor",
col=c("red", "black")[sce$Oncogene], pch=16)
legend("bottomright", col=c("red", "black"), pch=16, cex=1.2,
legend=levels(sce$Oncogene))
Figure 8: Size factors from deconvolution, plotted against library sizes for all cells in the 416B dataset. Axes are shown on a log-scale. Wild-type cells are shown in black and oncogene-induced cells are shown in red.
Comments from Aaron:
computeSumFactors
function will automatically remove low-abundance genes prior to the calculation of size factors. Genes with an average count below a specified threshold (min.mean
) are ignored. For read count data, the default value of 1 is usually satisfactory. For UMI data, counts are lower so a threshold of 0.1 is recommended.computeSumFactors
function may yield negative size factors for low-quality cells.sizes
argument can be used to specify the number of pool sizes to use to compute the size factors. More sizes
yields more precise estimates at the cost of some computational time and memory. In general, sizes
should not be below 20 cells, to ensure that there are sufficient non-zero expression values in each pool. We also recommend that the total number of cells should be at least 100 for effective pooling.quickCluster
function and the results passed to computeSumFactors
via the cluster
argument. Cells in each cluster are normalized separately, and the size factors are rescaled to be comparable across clusters. This avoids the need to assume that most genes are non-DE across the entire population - only a non-DE majority is required between pairs of clusters. We demonstrate this approach later with a larger dataset, as there are not enough cells in the 416B dataset.Table of Contents
Applying the size factors to normalize gene expression
Using the deconvolution method to deal with zero counts
Normalization of cell-specific biases
Size factors computed from the counts for endogenous genes are usually not appropriate for normalizing the counts for spike-in transcripts. Consider an experiment without library quantification, i.e., the amount of cDNA from each library is not equalized prior to pooling and multiplexed sequencing. Here, cells containing more RNA have greater counts for endogenous genes and thus larger size factors to scale down those counts. However, the same amount of spike-in RNA is added to each cell during library preparation. This means that the counts for spike-in transcripts are not subject to the effects of RNA content. Attempting to normalize the spike-in counts with the gene-based size factors will lead to over-normalization and incorrect quantification of expression. Similar reasoning applies in cases where library quantification is performed. For a constant total amount of cDNA, any increases in endogenous RNA content will suppress the coverage of spike-in transcripts. As a result, the bias in the spike-in counts will be opposite to that captured by the gene-based size factor.
To ensure normalization is performed correctly, we compute a separate set of size factors for the spike-in set. For each cell, the spike-in-specific size factor is defined as the total count across all transcripts in the spike-in set. This assumes that none of the spike-in transcripts are differentially expressed, which is reasonable given that the same amount and composition of spike-in RNA should have been added to each cell (A. T. L. Lun et al. 2017). (See below for a more detailed discussion on spike-in normalization.) These size factors are stored in a separate field of the SingleCellExperiment
object by setting general.use=FALSE
in computeSpikeFactors
. This ensures that they will only be used with the spike-in transcripts but not the endogenous genes.
sce <- computeSpikeFactors(sce, type="ERCC", general.use=FALSE)
Table of Contents
Computing separate size factors for spike-in transcripts
Normalization of cell-specific biases
The count data are used to compute normalized log-expression values for use in downstream analyses. Each value is defined as the log2-ratio of each count to the size factor for the corresponding cell, after adding a prior count of 1 to avoid undefined values at zero counts. Division by the size factor ensures that any cell-specific biases are removed. If spike-in-specific size factors are present in sce
, they will be automatically applied to normalize the spike-in transcripts separately from the endogenous genes.
sce <- normalize(sce)
The log-transformation is useful as it means that any differences in the values directly represent log2-fold changes in expression between cells. This is usually more relevant than the absolute differences in coverage, which need to be interpreted in the context of the overall abundance. The log-transformation also provides some measure of variance stabilization (Law et al. 2014), so that high-abundance genes with large variances do not dominate downstream analyses. The computed values are stored as an "logcounts"
matrix in addition to the other assay elements.
Table of Contents
Denoising expression values using PCA
Normalization of cell-specific biases
Top
Choosing the parameters of the trend fit
Variability in the observed expression values across genes can be driven by genuine biological heterogeneity or uninteresting technical noise. To distinguish between these two possibiltiies, we need to model the technical component of the variance of the expression values for each gene. We do so using the set of spike-in transcripts, which were added in the same quantity to each cell. Thus, the spike-in transcripts should exhibit no biological variability, i.e., any variance in their counts should be technical in origin.
We use the trendVar
function to fit a mean-dependent trend to the variances of the log-expression values for the spike-in transcripts. We set design
to block on the plate of origin for each cell, to ensure that technical differences between plates do not inflate the variances. Given the mean abundance of a gene, the fitted value of the trend is then used as an estimate of the technical component for that gene. The biological component of the variance is finally calculated by subtracting the technical component from the total variance of each gene with the decomposeVar
function.
design <- model.matrix(~sce$Plate)
var.fit <- trendVar(sce, parametric=TRUE, design=design, span=0.3)
var.out <- decomposeVar(sce, var.fit)
head(var.out)
## mean total bio tech p.value
## ENSMUSG00000103377 0.008029604 0.01179812 -0.02378567 0.03558380 1.0000000
## ENSMUSG00000103147 0.034571996 0.07202590 -0.08118252 0.15320842 1.0000000
## ENSMUSG00000103161 0.005210840 0.00496927 -0.01812296 0.02309223 1.0000000
## ENSMUSG00000102331 0.018575647 0.03262176 -0.04969763 0.08231939 1.0000000
## ENSMUSG00000102948 0.059116545 0.08826678 -0.17371266 0.26197944 1.0000000
## Rp1 0.097464502 0.45637197 0.02445072 0.43192124 0.2865203
## FDR
## ENSMUSG00000103377 1.0000000
## ENSMUSG00000103147 1.0000000
## ENSMUSG00000103161 1.0000000
## ENSMUSG00000102331 1.0000000
## ENSMUSG00000102948 1.0000000
## Rp1 0.8056285
We visually inspect the trend to confirm that it corresponds to the spike-in variances (Figure 9)). The wave-like shape is typical of the mean-variance trend for log-expression values. A linear increase in the variance is observed as the mean increases from zero, as larger variances are possible when the counts increase. At very high abundances, the effect of sampling noise decreases due to the law of large numbers, resulting in a decrease in the variance.
plot(var.out$mean, var.out$total, pch=16, cex=0.6, xlab="Mean log-expression",
ylab="Variance of log-expression")
curve(var.fit$trend(x), col="dodgerblue", lwd=2, add=TRUE)
cur.spike <- isSpike(sce)
points(var.out$mean[cur.spike], var.out$total[cur.spike], col="red", pch=16)
Figure 9: Variance of normalized log-expression values for each gene in the 416B dataset, plotted against the mean log-expression. The blue line represents the mean-dependent trend fitted to the variances of the spike-in transcripts (red).
We check the distribution of expression values for the genes with the largest biological components. This ensures that the variance estimate is not driven by one or two outlier cells (Figure 10).
chosen.genes <- order(var.out$bio, decreasing=TRUE)[1:10]
plotExpression(sce, features=rownames(var.out)[chosen.genes]) + fontsize
Figure 10: Violin plots of normalized log-expression values for the top 10 genes with the largest biological components in the 416B dataset. Each point represents the log-expression value in a single cell.
Table of Contents
Fitting a trend to the spike-in variances
Modelling the technical noise in gene expression
In practice, trend fitting is complicated by the small number of spike-in transcripts and the uneven distribution of their abundances. For low numbers of cells, these issues are exacerbated by the low precision of the variance estimates. Thus, some tuning of trend parameters such as span
may be required to achieve a suitable fit - see ?trendVar
for more details. Setting parametric=TRUE
is especially useful for modelling the expected wave-like shape of the mean-variance relationship. (This is not the default setting as it is not robust for arbitrary trend shapes.)
The trendVar
function will also automatically filter out low-abundance genes prior to trend fitting. This ensures that low-abundance genes do not interfere with the fit due to discreteness, which biases the estimate of variability of the variances around the trend; or due to the frequency of low-abundance genes, which reduces the sensitivity of span-based smoothing algorithms at higher abundances. The internal choice of filtering strategy involves a number of considerations:
min.mean
argument in trendVar
. We use the default threshold of 0.1 (min.mean
) based on the appearance of discrete patterns in the variance estimates for simulated Poisson-distributed counts. Lower thresholds of 0.001-0.01 may be more suitable for very sparse data, e.g., from droplet-based protocols.trendVar
is not applied in decomposeVar
by default. Retention of all genes ensures that weak biological signal from rare subpopulations is not discarded. To apply the filter in decomposeVar
, users should set subset.row=rowMeans(logcounts(sce)) > 0.1
in the function call.Finally, users can set use.spikes=FALSE
to fit a trend to the variances of the endogenous genes in the absence of spike-in transcripts. This requires some care in interpretation of the results, which will be discussed later.
Comments from Aaron:
decomposeVar
. These are intuitively meaningless as it is impossible for a gene to have total variance below technical noise. Nonetheless, such values occur due to imprecise estimation of the total variance, especially for low numbers of cells.decomposeVar
also yields p-values that can be used to define HVGs at a specific threshold for the false discovery rate (FDR). We will discuss this in more detail later, as formal detection of HVGs is not necessary for feature selection during data exploration.Table of Contents
Data exploration with dimensionality reduction
Modelling the technical noise in gene expression
Top
Once the technical noise is modelled, we can use principal components analysis (PCA) to remove random technical noise. Consider that each cell represents a point in the high-dimensional expression space, where the spread of points represents the total variance. PCA identifies axes in this space that capture as much of this variance as possible. Each axis is a principal component (PC), where any early PC will explain more of the variance than a later PC.
We assume that biological processes involving co-regulated groups of genes will account for the most variance in the data. If this is the case, this process should be represented by one or more of the earlier PCs. In contrast, random technical noise affects each gene independently and will be represented by later PCs. The denoisePCA
function removes later PCs until the total discarded variance is equal to the sum of technical components for all genes used in the PCA.
sce <- denoisePCA(sce, technical=var.fit$trend, design=design)
dim(reducedDim(sce, "PCA"))
## [1] 183 23
The function returns a SingleCellExperiment
object containing the PC scores for each cell in the reducedDims
slot. The aim is to eliminate technical noise and enrich for biological signal in the retained PCs. This improves resolution of the underlying biology during downstream procedures such as clustering.
Comments from Aaron:
denoisePCA
will internally filter to only genes that have positive biological components in denoisePCA
. This guarantees that the total technical variance to be discarded will not be greater than the total variance in the data.sce2 <- denoisePCA(sce, technical=var.fit$trend, design=design, value="lowrank")
assayNames(sce2)
## [1] "counts" "logcounts" "lowrank"
design
is specified, denoisePCA
will automatically regress out uninteresting factors of variation and perform PCA on the residuals. This ensures that those factors do not drive separation between clusters or in low-dimensional space. Users can do this manually with the removeBatchEffect
function from the limma package (Ritchie et al. 2015), as shown below. However, if an analysis method can accept a design matrix, blocking on nuisance factors in the design matrix is preferable to using removeBatchEffect
. This is because the latter does not account for the loss of residual degrees of freedom, nor the uncertainty of estimation of the blocking factor terms.library(limma)
adj.exprs <- logcounts(sce)
adj.exprs <- removeBatchEffect(adj.exprs, batch=sce$Plate)
norm_exprs(sce) <- adj.exprs
Table of Contents
Clustering cells into putative subpopulations
Denoising expression values using PCA
Top
We visualize the relationships between cells by constructing pairwise PCA plots for the first three components (Figure 11). Cells with similar expression profiles should be located close together in the plot, while dissimilar cells should be far apart. In this case, we observe a clear separation of cells based on the oncogene induction status, consistent with the expected effects on the transcriptome.
plotReducedDim(sce, use_dimred="PCA", ncomponents=3,
colour_by="Oncogene") + fontsize
Figure 11: Pairwise PCA plots of the first three PCs in the 416B data set, constructed from normalized log-expression values of genes with positive biological components. Each point represents a cell, coloured according to the oncogene induction status. Bars represent the coordinates of the cells on each axis.
Another widely used approach is the t-stochastic neighbour embedding (t-SNE) method (Van der Maaten and Hinton 2008). t-SNE tends to work better than PCA for separating cells in more diverse populations. This is because the former can directly capture non-linear relationships in high-dimensional space, whereas the latter must represent them on linear axes. However, this improvement comes at the cost of more computational effort and requires the user to consider parameters such as the random seed and perplexity (see comments). We demonstrate the generation of t-SNE plots in Figure 12, using the low-rank approximation of the data to take advantage of the denoising step.
out5 <- plotTSNE(sce, use_dimred="PCA", perplexity=5, colour_by="Oncogene",
rand_seed=100) + fontsize + ggtitle("Perplexity = 5")
out10 <- plotTSNE(sce, use_dimred="PCA", perplexity=10, colour_by="Oncogene",
rand_seed=100) + fontsize + ggtitle("Perplexity = 10")
out20 <- plotTSNE(sce, use_dimred="PCA", perplexity=20, colour_by="Oncogene",
rand_seed=100) + fontsize + ggtitle("Perplexity = 20")
multiplot(out5, out10, out20, cols=3)
Figure 12: t-SNE plots constructed from the denoised PCs in the 416B data set, using a range of perplexity values. Each point represents a cell, coloured according to its oncogene induction status. Bars represent the coordinates of the cells on each axis.
There are many other dimensionality reduction techniques that we do not consider here but could also be used, e.g., multidimensional scaling, diffusion maps. These have their own advantages and disadvantages – for example, diffusion maps (see plotDiffusionMap
) place cells along a continuous trajectory and are suited for visualizing graduated processes like differentiation (Angerer et al. 2016).
Comments from Aaron:
rand_seed
argument) to ensure that the chosen results are reproducible. It is also advisable to test different settings of the “perplexity” parameter as this will affect the distribution of points in the low-dimensional space. A good guide on how to interpret t-SNE plots can be found at http://distill.pub/2016/misread-tsne/.Table of Contents
Concluding remarks
Data exploration with dimensionality reduction
Top
Detecting marker genes between clusters
The denoised log-expression values are used to cluster cells into putative subpopulations. Specifically, we perform hierarchical clustering on the Euclidean distances between cells, using Ward’s criterion to minimize the total variance within each cluster. This yields a dendrogram that groups together cells with similar expression patterns across the chosen genes.
pcs <- reducedDim(sce, "PCA")
my.dist <- dist(pcs)
my.tree <- hclust(my.dist, method="ward.D2")
Clusters are explicitly defined by applying a dynamic tree cut (Langfelder, Zhang, and Horvath 2008) to the dendrogram. This exploits the shape of the branches in the dendrogram to refine the cluster definitions, and is more appropriate than cutree
for complex dendrograms. Greater control of the empirical clusters can be obtained by manually specifying cutHeight
in cutreeDynamic
. We also set minClusterSize
to a lower value than the default of 20, to avoid spurious aggregation of distant small clusters.
library(dynamicTreeCut)
my.clusters <- unname(cutreeDynamic(my.tree, distM=as.matrix(my.dist),
minClusterSize=10, verbose=0))
We examine the distribution of cells in each cluster with respect to known factors. Each cluster is comprised of cells from both batches, indicating that the clustering is not driven by a batch effect. Differences in the composition of each cluster are observed with respect to Oncogene
, consistent with a biological effect of oncogene induction.
table(my.clusters, sce$Plate)
##
## my.clusters 20160113 20160325
## 1 40 37
## 2 16 19
## 3 18 12
## 4 11 16
## 5 6 8
table(my.clusters, sce$Oncogene)
##
## my.clusters induced control
## 1 77 0
## 2 0 35
## 3 0 30
## 4 2 25
## 5 14 0
We visualize the cluster assignments for all cells on the t-SNE plot in Figure 13. Adjacent cells are generally assigned to the same cluster, indicating that the clustering procedure was applied correctly.
sce$cluster <- factor(my.clusters)
plotTSNE(sce, use_dimred="PCA", colour_by="cluster",
perplexity=20, rand_seed=200) + fontsize
Figure 13: t-SNE plot of the denoised PCs of the 416B data set. Each point represents a cell and is coloured according to the cluster identity to which it was assigned.
We check the separatedness of the clusters using the silhouette width (Figure 14). Cells with large positive silhouette widths are closer to other cells in the same cluster than to cells in different clusters. Conversely, cells with negative widths are closer to other clusters than to other cells in the cluster to which it was assigned. Each cluster would ideally contain many cells with large positive widths, indicating that it is well-separated from other clusters.
library(cluster)
clust.col <- scater:::.get_palette("tableau10medium") # hidden scater colours
sil <- silhouette(my.clusters, dist = my.dist)
sil.cols <- clust.col[ifelse(sil[,3] > 0, sil[,1], sil[,2])]
sil.cols <- sil.cols[order(-sil[,1], sil[,3])]
plot(sil, main = paste(length(unique(my.clusters)), "clusters"),
border=sil.cols, col=sil.cols, do.col.sort=FALSE)
Figure 14: Barplot of silhouette widths for cells in each cluster. Each cluster is assigned a colour and cells with positive widths are coloured according to the colour of its assigned cluster. Any cell with a negative width is coloured according to the colour of the cluster that it is closest to. The average width for all cells in each cluster is shown, along with the average width for all cells in the data set.
Most cells in in Figure 14 have small positive widths, representing weak separation between clusters in the 416B dataset. This may be symptomatic of over-clustering where clusters that are clearly defined on oncogene induction status are further split into subsets that are less well separated. The silhouette width can be used to gauge the optimal parameter values (e.g., cut height, number of clusters) that maximize the separation between clusters. For example, we could vary the cut height or splitting depth in cutreeDynamic
to maximize the average silhouette width across all cells. Nonetheless, we will proceed with the current clustering scheme in my.clusters
, which provides reasonable partitions for further characterization of heterogeneity.
Comments from Aaron:
quickCluster
). This is more robust to noise and normalization errors, but is also less sensitive to subtle changes in the expression profiles.Table of Contents
Defining cell clusters from expression data
Clustering cells into putative subpopulations
Once putative subpopulations are identified by clustering, we can identify marker genes for each cluster using the findMarkers
function. This fits a linear model to the log-expression values for each gene using limma (Ritchie et al. 2015). The aim is to test for DE in each cluster compared to the others while blocking on uninteresting factors such as the plate of origin in design
. The top DE genes are likely to be good candidate markers as they can effectively distinguish between cells in different clusters.
markers <- findMarkers(sce, my.clusters, design=design)
For each cluster, the DE results of the relevant comparisons are consolidated into a single output table. This allows a set of marker genes to be easily defined by taking the top DE genes from each pairwise comparison between clusters. For example, to construct a marker set for cluster 1 from the top 10 genes of each comparison, one would filter marker.set
to retain rows with Top
less than or equal to 10. Other statistics are also reported for each gene, including the adjusted p-values (see below) and the log-fold changes relative to every other cluster.
marker.set <- markers[["1"]]
head(marker.set, 10)
## Top Gene FDR logFC.2 logFC.3 logFC.4 logFC.5
## 1 1 Pimreg 4.63e-47 -7.36 -6.18 -1.130 -7.046
## 2 1 Ccna2 1.10e-52 -7.40 -7.30 -2.495 -7.378
## 3 1 Myh11 8.01e-40 4.45 4.34 4.119 0.905
## 4 2 Pclaf 7.30e-21 -5.72 -7.70 -2.983 -5.471
## 5 2 Mcm5 2.66e-33 -6.16 -7.42 -6.582 -4.933
## 6 3 Aurkb 6.50e-30 -7.36 -6.88 -1.912 -6.466
## 7 3 ENSMUSG00000046057 4.63e-47 -3.88 -5.67 -1.797 -3.806
## 8 3 Kif11 8.15e-42 -6.19 -5.58 -0.627 -7.286
## 9 3 Mcm2 5.33e-30 -4.76 -6.35 -6.387 -3.905
## 10 4 Prc1 9.74e-40 -6.96 -6.01 -0.552 -6.914
We save the list of candidate marker genes for further examination.
write.table(marker.set, file="416B_marker_1.tsv", sep="\t",
quote=FALSE, row.names=FALSE)
We visualize the expression profiles of the top candidates to verify that the DE signature is robust (Figure 15). Most of the top markers have strong and consistent up- or downregulation in cells of cluster 1 compared to some or all of the other clusters. A cursory examination of the heatmap indicates that cluster 1 contains oncogene-induced cells with strong downregulation of DNA replication and cell cycle genes. This is consistent with the potential induction of senescence as an anti-tumorigenic response (Wajapeyee et al. 2010). A more comprehensive investigation of the function of these markers can be performed with gene set enrichment analyses, e.g., using kegga
or goana
from limma.
top.markers <- marker.set$Gene[marker.set$Top <= 10]
top.exprs <- logcounts(sce)[top.markers,,drop=FALSE]
heat.vals <- top.exprs - rowMeans(top.exprs)
colnames(heat.vals) <- paste0("Cell", seq_len(ncol(heat.vals)))
# Winsorizing to preserve dynamic range of colours.
max.val <- 5
heat.vals[] <- pmax(pmin(max.val, heat.vals), -max.val)
col.breaks <- seq(-max.val, max.val, length.out=101) # Force symmetry around zero
# Defining cluster colours.
unique.clusters <- sort(unique(my.clusters))
chosen.cols <- clust.col[seq_along(unique.clusters)]
library(pheatmap)
pheatmap(heat.vals, cluster_cols=my.tree, breaks=col.breaks,
annotation_col=data.frame(Cluster=factor(my.clusters), Plate=factor(sce$Plate),
Oncogene=sce$Oncogene, row.names=colnames(heat.vals)),
annotation_colors=list(Cluster=setNames(chosen.cols, unique.clusters),
Plate=setNames(c("grey50", "grey80"), levels(sce$Plate)),
Oncogene=setNames(c("red", "black"), levels(sce$Oncogene))))
Figure 15: Heatmap of mean-centred and normalized log-expression values for the top set of markers for cluster 1 in the 416B dataset. Column colours represent the cluster to which each cell is assigned, the plate of origin or the oncogene induction status of each cell, as indicated by the legend.
Many of the markers in Figure 15 are not uniquely up- or downregulated in the chosen cluster. Testing for unique DE tends to be too stringent as it overlooks important genes that are expressed in two or more clusters. For example, in a mixed population of CD4+-only, CD8+-only, double-positive and double-negative T cells, neither Cd4 or Cd8 would be detected as subpopulation-specific markers because each gene is expressed in two subpopulations. With our approach, both of these genes will be picked up as candidate markers as they will be DE between at least one pair of subpopulations. A combination of markers can then be chosen to characterize a subpopulation, which is more flexible than trying to find uniquely DE genes.
We strongly recommend selecting some markers for use in validation studies with an independent replicate population of cells. The aim is to identify a corresponding subset of cells that express the upregulated markers and do not express the downregulated markers. Ideally, a different technique for quantifying expression would also be used during validation, e.g., fluorescent in situ hybridisation or quantitative PCR. This confirms that the subpopulation genuinely exists and is not an artifact of scRNA-seq or the computational analysis.
Comments from Aaron:
findMarkers
will automatically partition the data into low- and high-abundance genes. Empirical Bayes shrinkage is performed in each partition separately, prior to calculation of p-values using the shrunk variance estimates. This ensures that discreteness does not affect the inferences for high-abundance genes, without needing to entirely discard the low-abundance genes.direction="up"
, findMarkers
will only return genes that are upregulated in each cluster compared to the others. This is convenient in highly heterogeneous populations to focus on genes that can immediately identify each cluster. While lack of expression may also be informative, it is less useful for positive identification.findMarkers
can also be directed to find genes that are DE between the chosen cluster and all other clusters. This should be done by setting pval.type="all"
, which defines the p-value for each gene as the maximum value across all pairwise comparisons involving the chosen cluster. Combined with direction="up"
, this can be used to identify unique markers for each cluster. However, this is sensitive to overclustering, as unique marker genes will no longer exist if a cluster is split into two smaller subclusters.overlapExprs
function may also be useful here, to prioritize candidates where there is clear separation between the distributions of expression values of different clusters. This differs from findMarkers
, which is primarily concerned with the log-fold changes in average expression between clusters.Table of Contents
Clustering cells into putative subpopulations
Top
Once the basic analysis is completed, it is often useful to save the SingleCellExperiment
object to file with the saveRDS
function. The object can then be easily restored into new R sessions using the readRDS
function. This allows further work to be conducted without having to repeat all of the processing steps described above.
saveRDS(file="416B_data.rds", sce)
A variety of methods are available to perform more complex analyses on the processed expression data. For example, cells can be ordered in pseudotime (e.g., for progress along a differentiation pathway) with monocle (Trapnell et al. 2014) or TSCAN (Z. Ji and Ji 2016); cell-state hierarchies can be characterized with the sincell package (Julia, Telenti, and Rausell 2015); and oscillatory behaviour can be identified using Oscope (Leng et al. 2015). HVGs can be used in gene set enrichment analyses to identify biological pathways and processes with heterogeneous activity, using packages designed for bulk data like topGO or with dedicated single-cell methods like scde (J. Fan et al. 2016). Full descriptions of these analyses are outside the scope of this workflow, so interested users are advised to consult the relevant documentation.
All software packages used in this workflow are publicly available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (https://cran.r-project.org) or the Bioconductor project (http://bioconductor.org). The specific version numbers of the packages used are shown below, along with the version of the R installation.
sessionInfo()
## R version 3.4.2 (2017-09-28)
## Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit)
## Running under: Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS
##
## Matrix products: default
## BLAS: /usr/local/lib/R/lib/libRblas.so
## LAPACK: /usr/local/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.so
##
## locale:
## [1] LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C
## [3] LC_TIME=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=en_US.UTF-8
## [5] LC_MONETARY=en_US.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES=en_US.UTF-8
## [7] LC_PAPER=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NAME=C
## [9] LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C
## [11] LC_MEASUREMENT=en_US.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C
##
## attached base packages:
## [1] parallel stats4 stats graphics grDevices utils datasets
## [8] methods base
##
## other attached packages:
## [1] pheatmap_1.0.8
## [2] cluster_2.0.6
## [3] dynamicTreeCut_1.63-1
## [4] limma_3.34.4
## [5] scran_1.6.6
## [6] scater_1.6.1
## [7] ggplot2_2.2.1
## [8] TxDb.Mmusculus.UCSC.mm10.ensGene_3.4.0
## [9] GenomicFeatures_1.30.0
## [10] org.Mm.eg.db_3.5.0
## [11] AnnotationDbi_1.40.0
## [12] SingleCellExperiment_1.0.0
## [13] SummarizedExperiment_1.8.0
## [14] DelayedArray_0.4.1
## [15] matrixStats_0.52.2
## [16] Biobase_2.38.0
## [17] GenomicRanges_1.30.0
## [18] GenomeInfoDb_1.14.0
## [19] IRanges_2.12.0
## [20] S4Vectors_0.16.0
## [21] BiocGenerics_0.24.0
## [22] mvoutlier_2.0.8
## [23] sgeostat_1.0-27
## [24] Rtsne_0.13
## [25] BiocParallel_1.12.0
## [26] BiocStyle_2.7.2
## [27] rmarkdown_1.8
## [28] knitr_1.17
##
## loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
## [1] backports_1.1.2 igraph_1.1.2 plyr_1.8.4
## [4] lazyeval_0.2.1 sp_1.2-5 shinydashboard_0.6.1
## [7] splines_3.4.2 digest_0.6.13 htmltools_0.3.6
## [10] viridis_0.4.0 magrittr_1.5 memoise_1.1.0
## [13] Biostrings_2.46.0 prettyunits_1.0.2 colorspace_1.3-2
## [16] blob_1.1.0 rrcov_1.4-3 dplyr_0.7.4
## [19] RCurl_1.95-4.8 tximport_1.6.0 lme4_1.1-14
## [22] bindr_0.1 zoo_1.8-0 glue_1.2.0
## [25] gtable_0.2.0 zlibbioc_1.24.0 XVector_0.18.0
## [28] MatrixModels_0.4-1 car_2.1-6 kernlab_0.9-25
## [31] prabclus_2.2-6 DEoptimR_1.0-8 SparseM_1.77
## [34] VIM_4.7.0 scales_0.5.0 mvtnorm_1.0-6
## [37] DBI_0.7 GGally_1.3.2 edgeR_3.20.2
## [40] Rcpp_0.12.14 sROC_0.1-2 viridisLite_0.2.0
## [43] xtable_1.8-2 progress_1.1.2 laeken_0.4.6
## [46] bit_1.1-12 mclust_5.4 DT_0.2
## [49] vcd_1.4-4 htmlwidgets_0.9 httr_1.3.1
## [52] FNN_1.1 RColorBrewer_1.1-2 fpc_2.1-10
## [55] modeltools_0.2-21 pkgconfig_2.0.1 reshape_0.8.7
## [58] XML_3.98-1.9 flexmix_2.3-14 nnet_7.3-12
## [61] locfit_1.5-9.1 labeling_0.3 rlang_0.1.4
## [64] reshape2_1.4.3 munsell_0.4.3 tools_3.4.2
## [67] RSQLite_2.0 pls_2.6-0 evaluate_0.10.1
## [70] stringr_1.2.0 cvTools_0.3.2 yaml_2.1.16
## [73] bit64_0.9-7 robustbase_0.92-8 bindrcpp_0.2
## [76] nlme_3.1-131 mime_0.5 quantreg_5.34
## [79] biomaRt_2.34.1 compiler_3.4.2 pbkrtest_0.4-7
## [82] beeswarm_0.2.3 e1071_1.6-8 statmod_1.4.30
## [85] tibble_1.3.4 robCompositions_2.0.6 pcaPP_1.9-72
## [88] stringi_1.1.6 highr_0.6 lattice_0.20-35
## [91] trimcluster_0.1-2 Matrix_1.2-11 nloptr_1.0.4
## [94] lmtest_0.9-35 cowplot_0.9.1 data.table_1.10.4-3
## [97] bitops_1.0-6 httpuv_1.3.5 rtracklayer_1.38.2
## [100] R6_2.2.2 bookdown_0.5 RMySQL_0.10.13
## [103] KernSmooth_2.23-15 gridExtra_2.3 vipor_0.4.5
## [106] boot_1.3-20 MASS_7.3-47 assertthat_0.2.0
## [109] rhdf5_2.22.0 rprojroot_1.2 rjson_0.2.15
## [112] GenomicAlignments_1.14.1 Rsamtools_1.30.0 GenomeInfoDbData_1.0.0
## [115] diptest_0.75-7 mgcv_1.8-20 grid_3.4.2
## [118] class_7.3-14 minqa_1.2.4 shiny_1.0.5
## [121] ggbeeswarm_0.6.0
Table of Contents
Concluding remarks
Top
Anders, S., and W. Huber. 2010. “Differential expression analysis for sequence count data.” Genome Biol. 11 (10): R106.
Angerer, P., L. Haghverdi, M. Buttner, F. J. Theis, C. Marr, and F. Buettner. 2016. “destiny: diffusion maps for large-scale single-cell data in R.” Bioinformatics 32 (8): 1241–3.
Bertoli, C., J. M. Skotheim, and R. A. de Bruin. 2013. “Control of cell cycle transcription during G1 and S phases.” Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14 (8): 518–28.
Bourgon, R., R. Gentleman, and W. Huber. 2010. “Independent filtering increases detection power for high-throughput experiments.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (21): 9546–51.
Conboy, C. M., C. Spyrou, N. P. Thorne, E. J. Wade, N. L. Barbosa-Morais, M. D. Wilson, A. Bhattacharjee, et al. 2007. “Cell cycle genes are the evolutionarily conserved targets of the E2F4 transcription factor.” PLoS ONE 2 (10): e1061.
Fan, J., N. Salathia, R. Liu, G. E. Kaeser, Y. C. Yung, J. L. Herman, F. Kaper, et al. 2016. “Characterizing transcriptional heterogeneity through pathway and gene set overdispersion analysis.” Nat. Methods 13 (3): 241–44.
Ilicic, T., J. K. Kim, A. A. Kołodziejczyk, F. O. Bagger, D. J. McCarthy, J. C. Marioni, and S. A. Teichmann. 2016. “Classification of low quality cells from single-cell RNA-seq data.” Genome Biol. 17 (1): 29.
Islam, S., A. Zeisel, S. Joost, G. La Manno, P. Zajac, M. Kasper, P. Lonnerberg, and S. Linnarsson. 2014. “Quantitative single-cell RNA-seq with unique molecular identifiers.” Nat. Methods 11 (2): 163–66.
Ji, Z., and H. Ji. 2016. “TSCAN: Pseudo-time reconstruction and evaluation in single-cell RNA-seq analysis.” Nucleic Acids Res. 44 (13): e117.
Julia, M., A. Telenti, and A. Rausell. 2015. “Sincell: an R/Bioconductor package for statistical assessment of cell-state hierarchies from single-cell RNA-seq.” Bioinformatics 31 (20): 3380–2.
Langfelder, P., B. Zhang, and S. Horvath. 2008. “Defining clusters from a hierarchical cluster tree: the Dynamic Tree Cut package for R.” Bioinformatics 24 (5): 719–20.
Law, C. W., Y. Chen, W. Shi, and G. K. Smyth. 2014. “voom: Precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts.” Genome Biol. 15 (2): R29.
Leng, N., L. F. Chu, C. Barry, Y. Li, J. Choi, X. Li, P. Jiang, R. M. Stewart, J. A. Thomson, and C. Kendziorski. 2015. “Oscope identifies oscillatory genes in unsynchronized single-cell RNA-seq experiments.” Nat. Methods 12 (10): 947–50.
Love, M. I., W. Huber, and S. Anders. 2014. “Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2.” Genome Biol. 15 (12): 550.
Lun, A. T. L., F. J. Calero-Nieto, L. Haim-Vilmovsky, B. Gottgens, and J. C. Marioni. 2017. “Assessing the reliability of spike-in normalization for analyses of single-cell RNA sequencing data.” Genome Res. 27 (11): 1795–1806.
Lun, A. T., K. Bach, and J. C. Marioni. 2016. “Pooling across cells to normalize single-cell RNA sequencing data with many zero counts.” Genome Biol. 17 (April): 75.
Picelli, S., O. R. Faridani, A. K. Bjorklund, G. Winberg, S. Sagasser, and R. Sandberg. 2014. “Full-length RNA-seq from single cells using Smart-seq2.” Nat Protoc 9 (1): 171–81.
Ritchie, M. E., B. Phipson, D. Wu, Y. Hu, C. W. Law, W. Shi, and G. K. Smyth. 2015. “limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies.” Nucleic Acids Res. 43 (7): e47.
Robinson, M. D., and A. Oshlack. 2010. “A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data.” Genome Biol. 11 (3): R25.
Scialdone, A., K. N. Natarajan, L. R. Saraiva, V. Proserpio, S. A. Teichmann, O. Stegle, J. C. Marioni, and F. Buettner. 2015. “Computational assignment of cell-cycle stage from single-cell transcriptome data.” Methods 85 (September): 54–61.
Stegle, O., S. A. Teichmann, and J. C. Marioni. 2015. “Computational and analytical challenges in single-cell transcriptomics.” Nat. Rev. Genet. 16 (3): 133–45.
Trapnell, C., D. Cacchiarelli, J. Grimsby, P. Pokharel, S. Li, M. Morse, N. J. Lennon, K. J. Livak, T. S. Mikkelsen, and J. L. Rinn. 2014. “The dynamics and regulators of cell fate decisions are revealed by pseudotemporal ordering of single cells.” Nat. Biotechnol. 32 (4): 381–86.
Van der Maaten, L., and G. Hinton. 2008. “Visualizing Data Using T-SNE.” J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9 (2579-2605): 85.
Wajapeyee, N., S. Z. Wang, R. W. Serra, P. D. Solomon, A. Nagarajan, X. Zhu, and M. R. Green. 2010. “Senescence induction in human fibroblasts and hematopoietic progenitors by leukemogenic fusion proteins.” Blood 115 (24): 5057–60.