Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Droplet scRNA-seq is not zero-inflated

Nature Biotechnology volume 38, pages 147–150 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Matters Arising to this article was published on 01 February 2021

To the Editor — Potential users of single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq)1 often encounter a choice between high-throughput droplet-based methods and high-sensitivity plate-based methods. There is a widespread belief that scRNA-seq will often fail to generate measurements for some genes from some cells owing to technical molecular inefficiencies. It is believed that this causes data to have an overabundance of zero values compared to what is expected from random sampling and that this effect is particularly pronounced in droplet-based methods. Here I present an investigation of published data for technical controls in droplet-based scRNA-seq experiments that demonstrates that the number of zero values in the data is consistent with common distributional models of molecule sampling counts. Thus, any additional zero values in biological data likely result from biological variation or may reflect variation in gene abundance among cell types or cell states.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Comparing observed with expected zeros in scRNA-seq data.

References

  1. Chen, X., Teichmann, S. A. & Meyer, K. B. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci. 1, 29–51 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vallejos, C. A., Risso, D., Scialdone, A., Dudoit, S. & Marioni, J. C. Nat. Methods 14, 565–571 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bacher, R. & Kendziorski, C. Genome Biol. 17, 63 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Haque, A., Engel, J., Teichmann, S. A. & Lönnberg, T. Genome Med. 9, 75 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Silverman, J.D., Roche, K., Mukherjee, S. & David, L.A. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/477794 (2018).

  6. Kharchenko, P. V., Silberstein, L. & Scadden, D. T. Nat. Methods 11, 740–742 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Finak, G. et al. Genome Biol. 16, 278 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pierson, E. & Yau, C. Genome Biol. 16, 241 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lin, P., Troup, M. & Ho, J. W. K. Genome Biol. 18, 59 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tung, P.-Y. et al. Sci. Rep. 7, 39921 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gong, W., Kwak, I.-Y., Pota, P., Koyano-Nakagawa, N. & Garry, D. J. BMC Bioinforma. 19, 220 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhu, L., Lei, J., Devlin, B. & Roeder, K. Ann. Appl. Stat. 12, 609–632 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Azizi, E., Prabhakaran, S., Carr, A. & Pe’er, D. Genomics Computational. Biol. 3, e46 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Li, W. V. & Li, J. J. Nat. Commun. 9, 997 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van Dijk, D. et al. Cell 174, 716–729.e27 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tang, W. et al. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz726 (2019).

  17. Huang, M. et al. Nat. Methods 15, 539–542 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Risso, D., Perraudeau, F., Gribkova, S., Dudoit, S. & Vert, J.-P. Nat. Commun. 9, 284 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lopez, R., Regier, J., Cole, M. B., Jordan, M. I. & Yosef, N. Nat. Methods 15, 1053–1058 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Eraslan, G., Simon, L. M., Mircea, M., Mueller, N. S. & Theis, F. J. Nat. Commun. 10, 390 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vieth, B., Ziegenhain, C., Parekh, S., Enard, W. & Hellmann, I. Bioinformatics 33, 3486–3488 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Andrews, T.S. & Hemberg, M. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty1044 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Townes, F. W., Hicks, S. C., Aryee, M. J. & Irizarry, R. A. Genome Biol. 20, 295 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Macosko, E. Z. et al. Cell 161, 1202–1214 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Klein, A. M. et al. Cell 161, 1187–1201 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zheng, G. X. Y. et al. Nat. Commun. 8, 14049 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Svensson, V. et al. Nat. Methods 14, 381–387 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J.A. Generalized Linear Models, Second Edition (CRC Press, 1989).

  29. Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J. & Smyth, G. K. Bioinformatics 26, 139–140 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Padovan-Merhar, O. et al. Mol. Cell 58, 339–352 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank E. da Veiga Beltrame for feedback on the manuscript, G. Eraslan for making fast code for fitting negative binomial models available, and the scientific community on Twitter for suggesting writing up this analysis as a manuscript. V.S. was funded in part by the EMBL International PhD Programme and NIH U19MH114830.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

    Valentine Svensson

Authors
  1. Valentine Svensson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentine Svensson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Svensson, V. Droplet scRNA-seq is not zero-inflated. Nat Biotechnol 38, 147–150 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0379-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0379-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing