henhaobio
Sign in

PLoS Computational BiologyGenomicsPeer-reviewed journal article

miQC: An adaptive probabilistic framework for quality control of single-cell RNA-sequencing data

Ariel A. HippeniD, Matías Marín FalcoiD, Lukas M. WeberiD, Erdoğan Pekcan ErkaniD, Kaiyang ZhangiD, Jennifer A. DohertyiD, Anna VähärautioiD, Casey S. GreeneiD, Stephanie C. HicksiD

PDFDOIPreprintCode

Abstract

MotivationSingle-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) has made it possible to profile gene expression in tissues at high resolution. An important preprocessing step prior to performing downstream analyses is to identify and remove cells with poor or degraded sample quality using quality control (QC) metrics. Two widely used QC metrics to identify a low-quality cell are (i) if the cell includes a high proportion of reads that map to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) encoded genes and (ii) if a small number of genes are detected. Current best practices use these QC metrics independently with either arbitrary, uniform thresholds (e.g. 5%) or biological context-dependent (e.g. species) thresholds, and fail to jointly model these metrics in a data-driven manner. Current practices are often overly stringent and especially untenable on lower-quality tissues, such as archived tumor tissues. ResultsWe propose a data-driven QC metric (miQC) that jointly models both the proportion of reads mapping to mtDNA genes and the number of detected genes with mixture models in a probabilistic framework to predict the low-quality cells in a given dataset. We demonstrate how our QC metric easily adapts to different types of single-cell datasets to remove low-quality cells while preserving high-quality cells that can be used for downstream analyses. AvailabilitySoftware available at https://github.com/greenelab/miQC. The code used to download datasets, perform the analyses, and reproduce the figures is available at https://github.com/greenelab/mito-filtering. ContactStephanie C. Hicks (shicks19@jhu.edu) and Anna Vaharautio (anna.vaharautio@helsinki.fi)

Citations
109
FWCI
4.94
Field percentile
top 3%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.