Abstract
Singlecell RNAsequencing (scRNASeq) is widely used to reveal the heterogeneity and dynamics of tissues, organisms, and complex diseases, but its analyses still suffer from multiple grand challenges, including the sequencing sparsity and complex differential patterns in gene expression. We introduce the scGNN (singlecell graph neural network) to provide a hypothesisfree deep learning framework for scRNASeq analyses. This framework formulates and aggregates cell–cell relationships with graph neural networks and models heterogeneous gene expression patterns using a lefttruncated mixture Gaussian model. scGNN integrates three iterative multimodal autoencoders and outperforms existing tools for gene imputation and cell clustering on four benchmark scRNASeq datasets. In an Alzheimer’s disease study with 13,214 single nuclei from postmortem brain tissues, scGNN successfully illustrated diseaserelated neural development and the differential mechanism. scGNN provides an effective representation of gene expression and cell–cell relationships. It is also a powerful framework that can be applied to general scRNASeq analyses.
Introduction
Singlecell RNAsequencing (scRNAseq) techniques enable transcriptomewide gene expression measurement in individual cells, which are essential for identifying celltype clusters, inferring the arrangement of cell populations according to trajectory topologies, and highlighting somatic clonal structures while characterizing cellular heterogeneity in complex diseases^{1,2}. scRNAseq analysis for biological inference remains challenging due to its complex and undetermined data distribution, which has a large volume and high rate of dropout events. Some pioneer methodologies, e.g., Phenograph^{3}, MAGIC^{4}, and Seurat^{5} use a knearestneighbor (KNN) graph to model the relationships between cells. However, such a graph representation may oversimplify the complex cell and gene relationships of the global cell population. Recently, the emerging graph neural network (GNN) has deconvoluted node relationships in a graph through neighbor information propagation in a deep learning architecture^{6,7,8}. Compared with other autoencoders used in the scRNASeq analysis^{9,10,11,12} for revealing an effective representation of scRNASeq data via recreating its own input, the unique feature of graph autoencoder is in being able to learn a lowdimensional representation of the graph topology and train node relationships in a global view of the whole graph^{13}.
We introduce a multimodal framework scGNN (singlecell graph neural network) for modeling heterogeneous cell–cell relationships and their underlying complex gene expression patterns from scRNASeq. scGNN trains lowdimensional feature vectors (i.e., embedding) to represent relationships among cells through topological abstraction based on both gene expression and transcriptional regulation information. There are three unique features in scGNN: (i) scGNN utilizes GNN with multimodal autoencoders to formulate and aggregate cell–cell relationships, providing a hypothesisfree framework to derive biologically meaningful relationships. The framework does not need to assume any statistical distribution or relationships for gene expression data or dropout events. (ii) Celltypespecific regulatory signals are modeled in building a cell graph, equipped with a lefttruncated mixture Gaussian (LTMG) model for scRNASeq data^{14}. This can improve the signaltonoise ratio in terms of embedding biologically meaningful information. (iii) Bottomup cell relationships are formulated from a dynamically pruned GNN cell graph. The entire graph can be represented by pooling on learned graph embedding of all nodes in the graph. The graph embedding can be used as lowdimensional features with tolerance to noises for the preservation of topological relationships in the cell graph. The derived cell–cell relationships are adopted as regularizers in the autoencoder training to recover gene expression values.
scGNN has great potential in capturing biological cell–cell relationships in terms of celltype clustering, cell trajectory inference, cell lineages formation, and cells transitioning between states. In this paper, we mainly focus on discovering its applicative power in two fundamental aspects from scRNASeq data, i.e., gene imputation and cell clustering. Gene imputation aims to solve the dropout issue which commonly exists in scRNASeq data where the expressions of a large number of active genes are marked as zeros^{15,16,17}. The excess of zero values often needs to be recovered or handled to avoid the exaggeration of the dropout events in many downstream biological analyses and interpretations. Existing imputation methods^{18}, such as MAGIC^{4} and SAVER^{19}, have an issue in generating biased estimates of gene expression and tend to induce falsepositive and biased gene correlations that could possibly eliminate some meaningful biological variations^{20,21}. On the other hand, many studies, including Seurat^{5} and Phenograph^{3}, have explored the cell–cell relationships using raw scRNAseq data, and built cell graphs with reduced data dimensions and detected cell clusters by applying the Louvain modularity optimization. Accurate cell–cell relationships obey the rule that cells are more homogeneous within a cell type and more heterogeneous among different cell types^{22}, The scGNN model provides a global perspective in exploring cell relationships by integrating cell neighbors on the whole population.
scGNN achieves promising performance in gene imputation and cell cluster prediction on four scRNASeq data sets with goldstandard cell labels^{23,24,25,26}, compared to nine existing imputation and four clustering tools (Supplementary Table 1). We believe that the superior performance in gene imputation and cell cluster prediction benefits from (i) our integrative autoencoder framework, which synergistically determines cell clusters based on a bottomup integration of detailed pairwise cell–cell relationships and the convergence of predicted clusters, and (ii) the integration of both gene regulatory signals and cell network representations in hidden layers as regularizers of our autoencoders. To further demonstrate the power of scGNN in complex disease studies, we applied it to an Alzheimer’s disease (AD) data set containing 13,214 single nuclei, which elucidated its application power on celltype identification and recovering gene expression values^{27}. We claim that such a GNNbased framework is powerful and flexible enough to have great potential in integrating scMultiOmics data.
Results
The architecture of scGNN comprises stacked autoencoders
The main architecture of scGNN is used to seek effective representations of cells and genes that are useful for performing different tasks in scRNASeq data analyses (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 1). It has three comprehensive computational components in an iteration process, including gene regulation integration in a feature autoencoder, cell graph representation in a graph autoencoder, gene expression updating in a set of parallel celltypespecific cluster autoencoders, as well as the final gene expression recovery in an imputation autoencoder (Fig. 1).
The feature autoencoder intakes the preprocessed gene expression matrix after the removal of lowquality cells and genes, normalization, and variable gene ranking (Fig. 2a). First, the LTMG model^{14,28} is adopted to the top 2,000 variable genes to quantify gene regulatory signals encoded among diverse cell states in scRNASeq data (see “Methods” section and Supplementary Fig. 2). This model was built based on the kinetic relationships between the transcriptional regulatory inputs and mRNA metabolism and abundance, which can infer the expression of multimodalities across single cells. The captured signals have a better signaltonoise ratio to be used as a highorder restraint to regularize the feature autoencoder. The aim of this regularization is to treat each gene differently based on their individual regulation status through a penalty in the loss function. The feature autoencoder learns a lowdimensional embedding by the gene expression reconstruction together with the regularization. A cell–cell graph is generated from the learned embedding via the KNN graph, where nodes represent individual cells and the edges represent neighborhood relations among these cells^{29,30}. Then, the cell graph is pruned from selecting an adaptive number of neighbors for each node on the KNN graph by removing the noisy edges^{3}.
Taking the pruned cell graph as input, the encoder of the graph autoencoder uses GNN to learn a lowdimensional embedding of each node and then regenerates the whole graph structure through the decoder of the graph autoencoder (Fig. 2b). Based on the topological properties of the cell graph, the graph autoencoder abstracts intrinsic highorder cell–cell relationships propagated on the global graph. The lowdimensional graph embedding integrates the essential pairwise cell–cell relationships and the global cell–cell graph topology using a graph formulation by regenerating the topological structure of the input cell graph. Then the kmeans clustering method is used to cluster cells on the learned graph embedding^{31}, where the number of clusters is determined by the Louvain algorithm^{31} on the cell graph.
The expression matrix in each cell cluster from the feature autoencoder is reconstructed through the cluster autoencoder. Using the inferred celltype information from the graph autoencoder, the cluster autoencoder treats different cell types specifically and regenerates expression in the same cell cluster (Fig. 2c). The cluster autoencoder helps discover celltypespecific information for each cell type in its individualized learning. Accompanied by the feature autoencoder, the cluster autoencoder leverages the inferences between global and celltypespecific representation learning. Iteratively, the reconstructed matrix is fed back into the feature autoencoder. The iteration process stops until it converges with no change in cell clustering and this cell clustering result is recognized as the final results of celltype prediction.
After the iteration stops, this imputation autoencoder takes the original gene expression matrix as input and is trained with the additional L1 regularizer of the inferred cell–cell relationships. The regularizers (see “Methods” section) are generated based on edges in the learned cell graph in the last iteration and their cooccurrences in the same predicted cell type. Besides, the L1 penalty term is applied to increase the model generalization by squeezing more zeroes into the autoencoder model weights. The sparsity brought by the L1 term benefits the expression imputation in dropout effects. Finally, the reconstructed gene expression values are used as the final imputation output.
scGNN can effectively impute scRNASeq data and accurately predict cell clusters
To assess the imputation and cell clustering performance of scGNN, four scRNA data sets (i.e., Chung^{26}, Kolodziejczy^{23}, Klein^{24}, and Zeisel^{25}) with goldstandard celltype labels are chosen as the benchmarks (more performance evaluation on other data sets can be found in Supplementary Data 1–2). We simulated the dropout effects by randomly flipping a number of the nonzero entries to zeros. The synthetic dropout simulation was based on the same leaveoneout strategy used in scVI^{32} (Supplementary Fig. 3). Median L1 distance, cosine similarity, and rootmeansquaredeviation (RMSE) scores between the original data set and the imputed values for these synthetic entries were calculated to compare scGNN with MAGIC^{4}, SAUCIE^{10}, SAVER^{19}, scImpute^{33}, scVI^{32}, DCA^{11}, DeepImpute^{34}, scIGANs^{35}, and netNMFsc^{36} (see “Methods” section). scGNN achieves the best results in recovering gene expressions in terms of median L1 distance, and RMSE at the 10 and 30% synthetic dropout rate, respectively. While the cosine similarity score of scGNN ranks at the top place for 10% rate and the third place for 30% rate. (Fig. 3a and Supplementary Data 1). Furthermore, scGNN can recover the underlying gene–gene relationships missed in the raw expression data due to the sparsity of scRNASeq. For example, two pluripotency epiblast gene pairs, Ccnd3 versus Pou5f1 and Nanog versus Trim28, are lowly correlated in the original raw data but show strong correlations relations, which are differentiated by time points after scGNN imputation and, therefore, perform with a consistency leading to the desired results sought in the original paper^{24} (Fig. 3b). The recovered relations of four more gene pairs are also showcased in Supplementary Figure 4. scGNN amplifies differentially expressed genes (DEGs) signals with a higher fold change than the original, using an imputed matrix to confidently depict the cluster heterogeneity (Fig. 3c). We also compared the DEG signal changes before and after imputation using other imputation tools. As an example, 744 DEGs (logFC > 0.25) identified in Microglia (benchmark cell label) of Zeisel data were compared logFC value change before and after imputation (Supplementary Fig. 5). The result turned out that scGNN is the only tool that increases all most all DEG signals in Microglia with the strongest Pearson’s correlation coefficient to the original data. Other tools showed weaker coefficients and signals in some of the genes were decreased, indicating imputation bias in these tools. Our results indicate that scGNN can accurately restore expression values, capture true gene–gene relations, and increase DEG signals, without inducing additional noises.
Besides the artificial dropout benchmarks, we continued to evaluate the clustering performance of scGNN and the nine imputation tools on the same two data sets. The predicted cell labels were systematically evaluated using 10 criteria including an adjusted Rand index (ARI)^{37}, Silhouette^{38}, and eight other criteria (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Data 2). By visualizing cell clustering results on UMAPs^{39}, one can observe more apparent closeness of cells within the same cluster and separation among different clusters when using scGNN embeddings compared to the other nine imputation tools (Fig. 4b). We also observed that compared to the tSNE^{40} and PHATE^{41} visualization methods, UMAP showed better display results with closer innergroup distance and larger betweengroup distances (Supplementary Fig. 6). The expression patterns show heterogeneity along with embryonic stem cell development. In the case of Klein’s timeseries data, scGNN recovered a complex structure that was not well represented by the raw data, showing a wellaligned trajectory path of cell development from Day 1 to Day 7 (Fig. 4c). Moreover, scGNN showed significant enhancement in cell clustering compared to the existing scRNASeq analytical framework (e.g., Seurat using the Louvain method) when using the raw data (Supplementary Fig. 7). We hypothesized that the cell–cell graph constructed from scGNN can reflect cell–cell communications based on ligand–receptor pairs. Using CellChat^{42} and curated receptor–ligand pairs, we proved that aggregated interaction probability of cell pairs defined in an scGNN cell–cell graph is significantly higher than randomly selected cell pairs, which strongly indicates the capability of scGNN in capturing the real cell–cell communications and interactions (Supplementary Fig. 8).
On top of that, to address the significance of using the graph autoencoder and cluster autoencoder in scGNN, we performed ablation tests to bypass each autoencoder and compare the ARI results on the Klein data set (Fig. 4d and Supplementary Fig. 9). The results showed that removing either of these two autoencoders dramatically decreased the performance of scGNN in terms of cell clustering accuracy. Another test using all genes rather than the top 2,000 variable genes also showed poor performance in the results and doubled the runtime of scGNN, indicating that those low variable genes may reduce the signaltonoise ratio and negatively affect the accuracy of scGNN. The design and comprehensive results of the ablation studies on both clustering and imputation are detailed in Supplementary Methods 1–4, Supplementary Table 2, and Supplementary Data 3–8. We also extensively studied the parameter selection in Supplementary Data 9–12.
scGNN illustrates ADrelated neural development and the underlying regulatory mechanism
To further demonstrate the applicative power of scGNN, we applied it to a scRNASeq data set (GEO accession number GSE138852) containing 13,214 single nuclei collected from six AD and six control brains^{27}. scGNN identifies 10 cell clusters, including microglia, neurons, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs), astrocytes, and six subclusters of oligodendrocytes (Fig. 5a). Specifically, the proportions of these six oligodendrocyte subclusters differ between AD patients (Oligos 2, 3, and 4) and healthy controls (Oligos 1, 5, and 6) (Fig. 5b). Moreover, the difference between AD and the control in the proportion of astrocyte and OPCs is observed, indicating the change of cell population in AD patients compared to healthy controls (Fig. 5b). We then combined these six oligodendrocyte subclusters into one to discover DEGs. Since scGNN can significantly increase true signals in the raw data set, DEG patterns are more explicit (Supplementary Fig. 10). Among all DEGs, we confirmed 22 genes as celltypespecific markers for astrocytes, OPCs, oligodendrocytes, and neurons, in that order^{43} (Fig. 5c). A biological pathway enrichment analysis shows several highly positive enrichments in AD cells compared to control cells among all five cell types. These enrichments include oxidative phosphorylation and pathways associated with AD, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington disease^{44} (Fig. 5d and Supplementary Fig. 11). Interestingly, we observed a strong negative enrichment of the MAPK (mitogenactivated protein kinase) signaling pathway in the microglia cells, suggesting a relatively low MAPK regulation in microglia than other cells.
In order to investigate the regulatory mechanisms underlying the ADrelated neural development, we applied the imputed matrix of scGNN to IRIS3 (an integrated celltypespecific regulon inference server from singlecell RNASeq) and identified 21 celltypespecific regulons (CTSR) in five cell types^{45} (Fig. 5e and Supplementary Data 13; IRIS3 job ID: 20200626160833). Not surprisingly, we identified several ADrelated transcription factors (TFs) and target genes that have been reported to be involved in the development of AD. SP2 is a common TF identified in both oligodendrocytes and astrocytes. It has been shown to regulate the ABCA7 gene, which is an IGAP (International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project) gene that is highly associated with lateonset AD^{46}. We also observed an SP2 CTSR in astrocytes that regulate APOE, AQP4, SLC1A2, GJA1, and FGFR3. All of these five targeted genes are marker genes of astrocytes, which have been reported to be associated with AD^{47,48}. In addition, the SP3 TF, which can regulate the synaptic function in neurons is identified in all cell clusters, and it is highly activated in AD^{49,50}. We identified CTSRs regulated by SP3 in OPCs, astrocytes, and neurons suggesting significant SP3related regulation shifts in these three clusters. We observed 26, 60, and 22 genes that were uniquely regulated in OPCs, astrocytes, and neurons, as well as 60 genes shared among the three clusters (Supplementary Data 14). Such findings provide a direction for the discovery of SP3 function in AD studies.
Discussion
It is still a fundamental challenge to explore cellular heterogeneity in highvolume, highsparsity, and noisy scRNASeq data, where the highorder topological relationships of the wholecell graph are still not well explored and formulated. The key innovations of scGNN are incorporating global propagated topological features of the cells through GNNs, together with integrating gene regulatory signals in an iterative process for scRNASeq data analysis. The benefits of GNN are its intrinsic learnable properties of propagating and aggregating attributes to capture relationships across the whole cell–cell graph. Hence, the learned graph embedding can be treated as the highorder representations of cell–cell relationships in scRNASeq data in the context of graph topology. Unlike the previous autoencoder applications in scRNASeq data analysis, which only captures the topdown distributions of the overall cells, scGNN can effectively aggregate detailed relationships between similar cells using a bottomup approach. We also observed that the imputation of scGNN can decrease batch effects introduced by different sequencing technologies (Supplementary Fig. 12), which makes scGNN a good choice for data imputation prior to multiple scRNASeq data integration^{51}. Furthermore, scGNN integrates gene regulatory signals efficiently by representing them discretely in LTMG in the feature autoencoder regularization. These gene regulatory signals can help identify biologically meaningful gene–gene relationships as they apply to our framework and eventually, they are proven capable of enhancing performance. Technically, scGNN adopts multimodal autoencoders in an iterative manner to recover gene expression values and celltype prediction simultaneously. Notably, scGNN is a hypothesisfree deep learning framework on a datadriven cell graph model, and it is flexible to incorporate different statistical models (e.g., LTMG) to analyze complex scRNASeq data sets.
Some limitations can still be found in scGNN. (i) It is prone to achieve better results with large data sets, compared to relatively small data sets (e.g., <1000 cells), as it is designed to learn better representations with many cells from scRNASeq data, as shown in the benchmark results, and (ii) Compared with statistical modelbased methods, the iterative autoencoder framework needs more computational resources, which is more timeconsuming (Supplementary Data 15). In the future, we will investigate creating a more efficient scGNN model with a lighter and more compressed architecture.
In the future, we will continue to enhance scGNN by implementing heterogeneous graphs to support the integration of singlecell multiomics data (e.g., the intramodality of SmartSeq2 and Droplet scRNASeq data; and the intermodality integration of scRNASeq and scATACSeq data). We will also incorporate attention mechanisms and graph transformer models^{52} to make the analyses more explainable. Specifically, by allowing the integration of scRNASeq and scATACSeq data, scGNN has the potential to elucidate celltypespecific gene regulatory mechanisms^{53}. On the other hand, T cell receptor repertoires are considered as unique identifiers of T cell ancestries that can improve both the accuracy and robustness of predictions regarding cell–cell interactions^{54}. scGNN can also facilitate batch effects and build connections across diverse sequencing technologies, experiments, and modalities. Moreover, scGNN can be applied to analyze spatial transcription data sets regarding spatial coordinates as additional regularizers to infer the cell neighborhood representation and better prune the cell graph. We plan to develop a more userfriendly software system from our scGNN model, together with modularized analytical functions in support of standardizing the data format, quality control, data integration, multifunctional scMultiseq analyses, performance evaluations, and interactive visualizations.
Methods
Data set preprocessing
scGNN takes the scRNASeq gene expression profile as the input. Data filtering and quality control are the first steps of data preprocessing. Due to the high dropout rate of scRNAseq expression data, only genes expressed as nonzero in more than 1% of cells, and cells expressed as nonzero in more than 1% of genes are kept. Then, genes are ranked by standard deviation, i.e., the top 2000 genes in variances are used for the study. All the data are logtransformed.
Lefttruncated mixed Gaussian (LTMG) modeling
A mixed Gaussian model with left truncation assumption is used to explore the regulatory signals from gene expression^{14}. The normalized expression values of gene X over N cells are denoted as X = {x_{1},…x_{N}}, where x_{j} ∈ X is assumed to follow a mixture of k Gaussian distributions, corresponding to k possible gene regulatory signals (TRSs). The density function of X is:
where α_{i} is the mixing weight, μ_{i} and σ_{i} are the mean and standard deviation of the ith Gaussian distribution, which can be estimated by: \({\Theta} \ast = \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{{{\mathrm{arg}}}}\,{{{\mathrm{max}}}}\,L({\Theta} ;X)} \\ {\Theta} \end{array}\) to model the errors at zero and the low expression values. With the left truncation assumption, the gene expression profile is split into M, which is a truly measured expression of values, and N − M representing leftcensored gene expressions for N conditions. The parameter Θ maximizes the likelihood function and can be estimated by an expectationmaximization algorithm. The number of Gaussian components is selected by the Bayesian Information Criterion; then, the original gene expression values are labeled to the most likely distribution under each cell. In detail, the probability that x_{j} belongs to distribution i is formulated by:
where x_{j} is labeled by TRS i if \(p\left( {x_j \in {{{\mathrm{TRS}}}}\,iK,{\Theta} \ast } \right) = \mathop{\max}\limits_{i = 1, \ldots ,K}(p\left( {x_j \in {{{\mathrm{TRS}}}}\,iK,{\Theta} \ast } \right))\). Thus, the discrete values (1,2, …, K) for each gene are generated.
Feature autoencoder
The feature autoencoder is proposed to learn the representative embedding of the scRNA expression through stacked two layers of dense networks in both the encoder and decoder. The encoder constructs the lowdimensional embedding of X′ from the input gene expression X, and the encoder reconstructs the expression \(\hat X\) from the embedding; thus, \(X,\hat X \in {\Bbb R}^{N \times M}\) and X′\(\in {\Bbb R}^{N \times M^{\prime} }\), where M is the number of input genes, M′ is the dimension of the learned embedding, and M′ < M. The objective of training the feature autoencoder is to achieve a maximum similarity between the original and reconstructed through minimizing the loss function, in which \({\sum} {\left( {X  \hat X} \right)^2}\) is the main term serving as the mean squared error (MSE) between the original and the reconstructed expressions.
Regularization
Regularization is adopted to integrate gene regulation information during the feature autoencoder training process. The aim of this regularization is to treat each gene differently based on their individual gene regulation role through penalizing it in the loss function. The MSE is defined as:
where \({{{\mathrm{TRS}}}} \in {\Bbb R}^{N \times M}\); α is a parameter used to control the strength of gene regulation regularization; α ∈ [0,1]. ∘ denotes elementwise multiplication. Thus, the loss function of the feature autoencoder is shown as Eq.(4).
In the encoder, the output dimensions of the first and second layers are set as 512 and 128, respectively. Each layer is followed by the ReLU activation function. In the decoder, the output dimensions of the first and second layers are 128 and 512, respectively. Each layer is followed by a sigmoid activation function. The learning rate is set as 0.001. The cluster autoencoder has the same architecture as the feature autoencoder, but without gene regulation regularization in the loss function.
Cell graph and pruning
The cell graph formulates the cell–cell relationships using embedding learned from the feature autoencoder. As done in the previous works^{4,55}, the cell graph is built from a KNN graph, where nodes are individual single cells, and the edges are relationships between cells. K is the predefined parameter used to control the scale of the captured interaction between cells. Each node finds its neighbors within the K shortest distances and creates edges between them and itself. Euclidian distance is calculated as the weights of the edges on the learned embedding vectors. The pruning process selects an adaptive number of neighbors for each node on the original KNN graph and keeps a more biologically meaningful cell graph. Here, Isolation Forest is applied to prune the graph to detect the outliner in the Kneighbors of each node^{56}. Isolation Forest builds individual random forest to check distances from the node to all Kneighbors and only disconnects the outliners.
Graph autoencoder
The graph autoencoder learns to embed and represent the topological information from the pruned cell graph. For the input pruned cell graph, G = (V, E) with N = V nodes denoting the cells and E representing the edges. A is its adjacency matrix and D is its degree matrix. The node feature matrix of the graph autoencoder is the learned embedding X′ from the feature autoencoder.
The graph convolution network (GCN) is defined as \({{{\mathrm{GCN}}}}\left( {X^\prime ,A} \right) = {{{\mathrm{ReLU}}}}(\tilde AX^\prime W)\), and W is a weight matrix learned from the training. \(\tilde A = D^{  1/2}AD^{  1/2}\) is the symmetrically normalized adjacency matrix and activation function ReLU(∙) = max(0, ∙). The encoder of the graph autoencoder is composed of two layers of GCN, and Z is the graph embedding learned through the encoder in Eq.(5). W_{1} and W_{2} are learned weight matrices in the first and second layers, and the output dimensions of the first and second layers are set at 32 and 16, respectively. The learning rate is set at 0.001.
The decoder of the graph autoencoder is defined as an inner product between the embedding:
where \(\hat A\) is the reconstructed adjacency matrix of A. sigmoid(∙) = 1/(1 + e^{−∙}) is the sigmoid activation function.
The goal of learning the graph autoencoder is to minimize the crossentropy L between the input adjacency matrix A and the reconstructed matrix \(\hat A\):
where a_{ij} and \(\hat a_{ij}\) are the elements of the adjacency matrix A and \(\hat A\) in the ith row and the jth column. As there are N nodes as the cell number in the graph, N × N is the total number of elements in the adjacency matrix.
Iterative process
The iterative process aims to build the singlecell graph iteratively until converging. The iterative process of the cell graph can be defined as:
where L_{0} is the normalized adjacency matrix of the initial pruned graph, and \(L_0 = D_0^{  1/2}A_0D_0^{  1/2}\), where D_{0} is the degree matrix. λ is the parameter to control the converging speed, λ ∈ [0,1]. Each time in iteration t, two criteria are checked to determine whether to stop the iteration: (1) that is, to determine whether the adjacency matrix converges, i.e., \(\tilde A_t  \tilde A_{t  1} < \gamma _1\tilde A_0,\) or (2) whether the inferred cell types are similar enough, i.e., ARI < γ_{2}. ARI is the similarity measurement, which is detailed in the next section. In our setting, λ = 0.5 and γ_{1}, γ_{2} = 0.99. The celltype clustering results obtained in the last iteration are chosen as the final celltype results.
Imputation autoencoder
After the iterative process stops, the imputation autoencoder imputes and denoises the raw expression matrix within the inferred cell–cell relationship. The imputation autoencoder shares the same architecture as the feature autoencoder, but it also uses three additional regularizers from the cell graph in Eq. (9), cell types in Eq. (10), and the L1 regularizer in Eq. (11):
where \(A \in {\Bbb R}^{N \times N}\) is the adjacency matrix from the pruned cell graph in the last iteration. ∙ denotes dot product. Cells within an edge in the pruned graph will be penalized in the training:
where \(B \in {\Bbb R}^{N \times N}\) is the relationship matrix between cells, and two cells in the same cell type have a B_{ij} value of 1. Cells within the same inferred cell type will be penalized in the training. γ_{1}, γ_{2} are the intensities of the regularizers and γ_{1}, γ_{2} ∈ [0,1]. The L1 regularizer is defined as
which brings sparsity and increases the generalization performance of the autoencoder by reducing the number of nonzero w terms in ∑w, where β is a hyperparameter controlling the intensity of the L1 term (β ∈ [0,1]). Therefore, the loss function of the imputation autoencoder is
Benchmark evaluation compared to existing tools
Imputation evaluation
For benchmarking imputation performance, we performed synthetic dropout simulation to randomly flip 10% of the nonzero entries to zeros. These synthetic dropouts still follow the zeroinflated negative binomial (ZINB) distribution with details shown in Supplementary Method 5 and Data 16. We evaluated median L1 distance, cosine similarity, and rootmeansquared error (RMSE) between the original data set and the imputed values for these corrupted entries. For all the flipped entries, x is the row vector of the original expression, and y is its corresponding row vector of the imputed expression. The L1 distance is the absolute deviation between the value of the original and imputed expression. A lower L1 distance means a higher similarity.
The cosine similarity computes the dot products between original and imputed expression.
The RMSE computes the squared root of the quadratic mean of differences between original and imputed expression.
The process is repeated three times, and the mean and standard deviation were selected as a comparison. The scores are compared between scGNN and nine imputation tools (i.e., MAGIC^{4}, SAUCIE^{10}, SAVER^{19}, scImpute^{33}, scVI^{32}, DCA^{11}, DeepImpute^{34}, scIGANs^{35}, and netNMFsc^{36}), using the default parameters.
Clustering evaluation
We compared the cell clustering results of scGNN, the same nine imputation tools, and four scRNASeq analytical frameworks, in terms of ten clustering evaluation scores. Noted that, we considered the default cell clustering method (i.e., Louvain method^{31} in Seurat^{5}, Ward.D2^{57} method in CIDR^{58}, Louvain method in Monocle^{59}, and kmeans^{60} method in RaceID^{61}) in each of the analytical frameworks to compare the cell clustering performance with scGNN. The default parameters are applied in all test tools. ARI^{37} is used to compute similarities by considering all pairs of the samples that are assigned in clusters in the current and previous clustering adjusted by random permutation:
where the unadjusted rand index (RI) is defined as:
where a is the number of pairs correctly labeled in the same sets, and b is the number of pairs correctly labeled as not in the same data set. \(C_n^2\) is the total number of possible pairs. E[RI] is the expected RI of random labeling.
Different from ARI which requires known ground truth labels, the Silhouette coefficient score^{38} defines how similar an object is to its own cluster compared to other clusters. It is defined as:
where a is the mean distance between a sample and all other points in the same class, b is the mean distance between a sample and all other points in the next nearest cluster. Silhouette ∈ [−1,1], where 1 indicates the best clustering results and −1 indicates the worst. We calculated the average Silhouette score of all cells in each data set to compare the cell clustering results. More quantitative measurements are also used in Supplementary Method 4.
Statistical validation of cell–cell graph topology based on LRPs
We used CellChat^{42} to predict potential interaction probability scores (ranging from 0 to 1; a higher score indicates the two cells are more likely to interact with each other) of ligand–receptor pairs (LRP) between any two cells. We built a fully connected cell–cell background graph (using all the cells) based on Pearson’s correlation of the raw expression matrix and compared it with the cell–cell graph generated from scGNN. CellChat calculates an aggregated interaction probability for each linked cell pair based on the expression level of LRPs. For all linked cell pairs in the background graph and scGNN cell–cell graph, we performed a Wilcoxon test to evaluate the statistical significance between the corresponding aggregated interaction probability. Five scRNASeq data sets (i.e., Klein, Zeisel, Kolo, Chung, and AD) were used in this analysis.
Case study of the AD database
We applied scGNN on public Alzheimer’s disease (AD) scRNASeq data with 13,214 cells^{27}. The resolution of scGNN was set to 1.0, KI was set to 20, and the remaining parameters were kept as default. The AD patient and control labels were provided by the original paper and used to color the cells on the same UMAP coordinates generated from scGNN. We simply combined cells in six oligodendrocyte subpopulations into one cluster, referred to as merged oligo. The DEGs were identified in each cell cluster via the Wilcoxon ranksum test implemented in the Seurat package along with adjusted pvalues using the BenjaminiHochberg procedure with a nominal level of 0.05. DEGs with logFC > 0.25 or <−0.25 were finally selected. We further identified the DEGs between AD and control cells in each cluster using the same strategy and applied GSEA for pathway enrichment analysis^{62}. The imputed matrix, which resulted from scGNN was then sent to IRIS3 for CTSR prediction, using the predicted cell clustering labels with merged oligodendrocytes^{45}. The default parameters were served in regulatory analysis in IRIS3.
Software implementation
Tools and packages used in this paper include: Python version 3.7.6, numpy version 1.18.1, torch version 1.4.0, networkx version 2.4, pandas version 0.25.3, rpy2 version 3.2.4, matplotlib version 3.1.2, seaborn version 0.9.0, umaplearn version 0.3.10, munkres version 1.1.2, R version 3.6.1, and igraph version 1.2.5. The IRIS3 website is at https://bmbl.bmi.osumc.edu/iris3/index.php.
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
The scRNAseq data sets analyzed during the current study are publicly available. Three benchmark and AD case data sets can be downloaded from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databases with accession numbers of GSE75688 (the Chung data); GSE65525 (the Klein data); GSE60361 (the Zeisel data); and GSE138852 (the AD case). The Kolodziejczy data can be accessed from EMBLEBI with an accession number of EMTAB2600.
Code availability
Our tool is open source and publicly available at GitHub and Zenodo (https://github.com/juexinwang/scGNN)^{63}.
Change history
04 May 2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467022303316
References
Hwang, B., Lee, J. H. & Bang, D. Singlecell RNA sequencing technologies and bioinformatics pipelines. Exp. Mol. Med. 50, 96 (2018).
Gawel, D. R. et al. A validated singlecellbased strategy to identify diagnostic and therapeutic targets in complex diseases. Genome Med. 11, 47 (2019).
Levine, J. H. et al. Datadriven phenotypic dissection of AML reveals progenitorlike cells that correlate with prognosis. Cell 162, 184–197 (2015).
van Dijk, D. et al. Recovering gene interactions from singlecell data using data diffusion. Cell 174, 716–729.e727 (2018).
Butler, A., Hoffman, P., Smibert, P., Papalexi, E. & Satija, R. Integrating singlecell transcriptomic data across different conditions, technologies, and species. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 411–420 (2018).
Kipf, T. N. & Welling, M. Semisupervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In The International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2017).
Wang, J., Ma, A., Ma, Q., Xu, D. & Joshi, T. Inductive inference of gene regulatory network using supervised and semisupervised graph neural networks. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 18, 3335–3343 (2020).
Fang, C., Xu, D., Su, J., Dry, J. R. & Linghu, B. DeePaN: deep patient graph convolutional network integrating clinicogenomic evidence to stratify lung cancers for immunotherapy. npj Digit. Med. 4, 14 (2021).
Wang, W., Huang, Y., Wang, Y. & Wang, L. Generalized autoencoder: a neural network framework for dimensionality reduction. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops 496–503, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW.2014.79 (2014)
Amodio, M. et al. Exploring singlecell data with deep multitasking neural networks. Nat. Methods 16, 1139–1145 (2019).
Eraslan, G., Simon, L. M., Mircea, M., Mueller, N. S. & Theis, F. J. Singlecell RNAseq denoising using a deep count autoencoder. Nat. Commun. 10, 390 (2019).
Miao, Z. et al. Putative cell type discovery from singlecell gene expression data. Nat. Methods 17, 621–628 (2020).
Kipf, T. N. & Welling, M. Variational graph autoencoders. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.07308 (2016).
Wan, C. et al. LTMG: a novel statistical modeling of transcriptional expression states in singlecell RNASeq data. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, e111 (2019).
Huang, M. et al. SAVER: gene expression recovery for singlecell RNA sequencing. Nat. Methods 15, 539 (2018).
Risso, D., Perraudeau, F., Gribkova, S., Dudoit, S. & Vert, J. P. A general and flexible method for signal extraction from singlecell RNAseq data. Nat. Commun. 9, 284 (2018).
Svensson, V. et al. Power analysis of singlecell RNAsequencing experiments. Nat. Methods 14, 381–387 (2017).
Tian, L. et al. Benchmarking single cell RNAsequencing analysis pipelines using mixture control experiments. Nat. Methods 16, 479–487 (2019).
Huang, M. et al. SAVER: gene expression recovery for singlecell RNA sequencing. Nat. Methods 15, 539–542 (2018).
Wang, J. et al. Data denoising with transfer learning in singlecell transcriptomics. Nat. Methods 16, 875–878 (2019).
Zhang, L. & Zhang, S. Comparison of computational methods for imputing singlecell RNAsequencing data. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinformatics 17, 376–389 (2020).
Liu, B. et al. An entropybased metric for assessing the purity of single cell populations. Nat. Commun. 11, 3155 (2020).
Kolodziejczyk, A. A. et al. Single cell RNAsequencing of pluripotent states unlocks modular transcriptional variation. Cell Stem Cell 17, 471–485 (2015).
Klein, A. M. et al. Droplet barcoding for singlecell transcriptomics applied to embryonic stem cells. Cell 161, 1187–1201 (2015).
Zeisel, A. et al. Brain structure. Cell types in the mouse cortex and hippocampus revealed by singlecell RNAseq. Science 347, 1138–1142 (2015).
Chung, W. et al. Singlecell RNAseq enables comprehensive tumour and immune cell profiling in primary breast cancer. Nat. Commun. 8, 15081 (2017).
Grubman, A. et al. A singlecell atlas of entorhinal cortex from individuals with Alzheimer’s disease reveals celltypespecific gene expression regulation. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 2087–2097 (2019).
Xie, J. et al. QUBIC2: a novel and robust biclustering algorithm for analyses and interpretation of largescale RNASeq data. Bioinformatics 36, 1143–1149 (2020).
Bendall, S. C. et al. Singlecell trajectory detection uncovers progression and regulatory coordination in human B cell development. Cell 157, 714–725 (2014).
Wolf, F. A. et al. PAGA: graph abstraction reconciles clustering with trajectory inference through a topology preserving map of single cells. Genome Biol. 20, 59 (2019).
Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.L., Lambiotte, R. & Lefebvre, E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2008, P10008 (2008).
Lopez, R., Regier, J., Cole, M. B., Jordan, M. I. & Yosef, N. Deep generative modeling for singlecell transcriptomics. Nat. Methods 15, 1053–1058 (2018).
Li, W. V. & Li, J. J. An accurate and robust imputation method scImpute for singlecell RNAseq data. Nat. Commun. 9, 997 (2018).
Arisdakessian, C., Poirion, O., Yunits, B., Zhu, X. & Garmire, L. X. DeepImpute: an accurate, fast, and scalable deep neural network method to impute singlecell RNAseq data. Genome Biol. 20, 211 (2019).
Xu, Y. et al. scIGANs: singlecell RNAseq imputation using generative adversarial networks. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, e85 (2020).
Elyanow, R., Dumitrascu, B., Engelhardt, B. E. & Raphael, B. J. netNMFsc: leveraging genegene interactions for imputation and dimensionality reduction in singlecell expression analysis. Genome Res. 30, 195–204 (2020).
Hubert, L. & Arabie, P. Comparing partitions. J. Classif. 2, 193–218 (1985).
Rousseeuw, P. J. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 20, 53–65 (1987).
McInnes, L., Healy, J. & Melville, J. Umap: uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426 (2018).
Hinton, G. E. & Roweis, S. Stochastic neighbor embedding. Adv. Neural Inf. Process Syst. 15, 857–864 (2002).
Moon, K. R. et al. Visualizing structure and transitions in highdimensional biological data. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1482–1492 (2019).
Armingol, E., Officer, A., Harismendy, O. & Lewis, N. E. Deciphering cellcell interactions and communication from gene expression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1038/s4157602000292x (2020).
Tanzi, R. E. The genetics of Alzheimer disease. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2, a006296 (2012).
Su, B. et al. Oxidative stress signaling in Alzheimer’s disease. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 5, 525–532 (2008).
Ma, A. et al. IRIS3: integrated celltypespecific regulon inference server from singlecell RNASeq. Nucleic Acids Res. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa394 (2020).
Karch, C. M., Ezerskiy, L. A., Bertelsen, S., Goate, A. M. & Alzheimer’s Disease Genetics Consortium. Alzheimer’s disease risk polymorphisms regulate gene expression in the ZCWPW1 and the CELF1 loci. PLoS ONE 11, e0148717 (2016).
Franzén, O., Gan, L.M. & Björkegren, J. L. M. PanglaoDB: a web server for exploration of mouse and human singlecell RNA sequencing data. Database 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baz046 (2019).
Mathys, H. et al. Singlecell transcriptomic analysis of Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 570, 332–337 (2019).
Yamakawa, H. et al. The transcription factor Sp3 cooperates with HDAC2 to regulate synaptic function and plasticity in neurons. Cell Rep. 20, 1319–1334 (2017).
Boutillier, S. et al. Sp3 and sp4 transcription factor levels are increased in brains of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurodegen. Dis. 4, 413–423 (2007).
Büttner, M., Miao, Z., Wolf, F. A., Teichmann, S. A. & Theis, F. J. A test metric for assessing singlecell RNAseq batch correction. Nat. Methods 16, 43–49 (2019).
Hu, Z., Dong, Y., Wang, K. & Sun, Y. Heterogeneous Graph Transformer. In Proc. Web Conference 2020 2704–2710 (2020).
Ma, A., McDermaid, A., Xu, J., Chang, Y. & Ma, Q. Integrative methods and practical challenges for singlecell multiomics. Trends Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.02.013 (2020).
Han, A., Glanville, J., Hansmann, L. & Davis, M. M. Linking Tcell receptor sequence to functional phenotype at the singlecell level. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 684–692 (2014).
Grün, D. Revealing dynamics of gene expression variability in cell state space. Nat. Methods 17, 45–49 (2020).
Liu, F. T., Ting, K. M. & Zhou, Z. in 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining 413–422 (2008).
Murtagh, F. & Legendre, P. Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: which algorithms implement Ward’s criterion? J. Classif. 31, 274–295 (2014).
Lin, P., Troup, M. & Ho, J. W. K. H. CIDR: Ultrafast and accurate clustering through imputation for singlecell RNAseq data. Genome Biol. 18, 59 (2017).
Qiu, X. et al. Reversed graph embedding resolves complex singlecell trajectories. Nat. Methods 14, 979–982 (2017).
Hartigan, J. A. & Wong, M. A. Algorithm AS 136: a Kmeans clustering algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C 28, 100–108 (1979).
Lin, P., Troup, M. & Ho, J. W. CIDR: Ultrafast and accurate clustering through imputation for singlecell RNAseq data. Genome Biol. 18, 59 (2017). PMC5371246.
Subramanian, A. et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledgebased approach for interpreting genomewide expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15545–15550 (2005). PMC1239896.
Juexin Wang, A. M. et al. scGNN is a novel graph neural network framework for singlecell RNASeq analyses. juexinwang/scGNN https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4540635 (2021).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by awards R35GM126985 and R01GM131399 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The work was also supported by award NSF1945971 from the National Science Foundation. We thank Ms. Carla Roberts for thoroughly proofreading this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Q.M. and D.X.; methodology: J.W., A.M., Q.M., and D.X.; software coding: J.W. and Y.C.; data collection and investigation: J.W., A.M., and R.Q.; data analysis: A.M., J.W., J.G., Y.C., and Y.J.; software testing and tutorial: J.W., J.G., R.Q., Y.J., and C.W.; manuscript writing, review, and editing: J.W., A.M., H.F., Q.M., and D.X.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Communications thanks Guy Wolf and Yuedong Yang for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, J., Ma, A., Chang, Y. et al. scGNN is a novel graph neural network framework for singlecell RNASeq analyses. Nat Commun 12, 1882 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146702122197x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146702122197x
This article is cited by

Singlecell biological network inference using a heterogeneous graph transformer
Nature Communications (2023)

Investigation of early molecular alterations in tauopathy with generative adversarial networks
Scientific Reports (2023)

Deep learning shapes singlecell data analysis
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology (2022)

Neural relational inference to learn longrange allosteric interactions in proteins from molecular dynamics simulations
Nature Communications (2022)

Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare
Nature Biomedical Engineering (2022)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.