4.7 Article

AutoGeneS: Automatic gene selection using multi-objective optimization for RNA-seq deconvolution

Journal

CELL SYSTEMS
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages 706-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cels.2021.05.006

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Helmholtz Association's Initiative and Networking Fund through Helmholtz AI [ZT-I-PF-5-01]
  2. sparse2big [ZT-I-007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AutoGeneS is a platform that automatically extracts discriminative genes and reveals cellular heterogeneity of bulk RNA samples without prior knowledge about marker genes. By simultaneously optimizing multiple criteria, AutoGeneS selects the most valuable genes for inferring cell-type proportions. Ground truth cell proportions analyzed by flow cytometry confirm the accuracy of AutoGeneS in identifying cell-type proportions.
Knowing cell-type proportions in a tissue is very important to identify which cells or cell types are targeted by a disease or perturbation. Hence, several deconvolution methods have been proposed to infer cell-type proportions from bulk RNA samples. Their performance with noisy reference profiles and closely correlated cell types highly depends on the set of genes undergoing deconvolution. In this work, we introduce AutoGeneS, a platform that automatically extracts discriminative genes and reveals the cellular heterogeneity of bulk RNA samples. AutoGeneS requires no prior knowledge about marker genes and selects genes by simultaneously optimizing multiple criteria: minimizing the correlation and maximizing the distance between cell types. AutoGeneS can be applied to reference profiles from various sources like single-cell experiments or sorted cell populations. Ground truth cell proportions analyzed by flow cytometry confirmed the accuracy of AutoGeneS in identifying cell-type proportions. AutoGeneS is available for use via a standalone Python package (https://github.com/theislab/AutoGeneS).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available