 Method
 Open Access
 Published:
SCA: recovering singlecell heterogeneity through informationbased dimensionality reduction
Genome Biology volume 24, Article number: 195 (2023)
Abstract
Dimensionality reduction summarizes the complex transcriptomic landscape of singlecell datasets for downstream analyses. Current approaches favor large cellular populations defined by many genes, at the expense of smaller and more subtly defined populations. Here, we present surprisal component analysis (SCA), a technique that newly leverages the informationtheoretic notion of surprisal for dimensionality reduction to promote more meaningful signal extraction. For example, SCA uncovers clinically important cytotoxic Tcell subpopulations that are indistinguishable using existing pipelines. We also demonstrate that SCA substantially improves downstream imputation. SCA’s efficient informationtheoretic paradigm has broad applications to the study of complex biological tissues in health and disease.
Background
Singlecell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) produces transcript counts for individual cells, enabling finegrained analyses of biological tissues. Singlecell datasets can uncover cellular populations and genegene interactions that play critical roles in biological and pathological phenomena [1,2,3]. Identifying and characterizing this heterogeneity is a key motivator of many singlecell experiments.
However, the size, high dimensionality, and noisiness of singlecell data complicates this task. Modern experiments profile tens of thousands of genes per cell, often with high dropout levels (undersampling of mRNA molecules) and technical noise. Dimensionality reduction, whereby the data is represented in a lowerdimensional space with enriched signal, has become a cornerstone of modern scRNAseq analysis pipelines. For example, principal component analysis (PCA) projects the data to a lowerdimensional linear subspace such that the total variance of the projected data is maximized. Independent component analysis (ICA) instead aims to identify nonGaussian combinations of features. Both have found widespread use in singlecell studies [4,5,6,7]. A more recent method, scVI [8], models transcript counts using a zeroinflated negativebinomial distribution, and performs variational inference to nonlinearly embed each cell into a lowdimensional parameter space. Graphbased dimensionality reduction methods such as PHATE [9] and diffusion maps [10] compute pairwise similarities between cells using diffusion on a knearestneighbor network and create embeddings that preserve these similarities.
While these approaches are effective, they often fail to capture the full cellular diversity of complex tissues for two reasons. First, rare cell types, by definition, account for a small fraction of the observations, and therefore contribute little to a dataset’s global structure. Second, many distinctions between cellular populations hinge on just a few of the thousands of genes measured; we call such populations subtly defined. For instance, gammadelta T cells, which are known for their antigen recognition capacities [11], are distinguished from ordinary cytotoxic T cells by the presence of just a few gamma and delta T receptors. Whereas PCA and ICA both compute features that optimize objective functions over the entire dataset―total variance and nonGaussianity―rare cell populations thwart both strategies, since the genes defining them may be noisy or unexpressed over much of the data. Similarly, scVI uses the evidence lower bound (ELBO) loss function to evaluate and refine its latent encoding. Since ELBO takes each recorded transcript into account, rare and subtly defined cell types may not impact it much, leading to underrepresentation. Other nonlinear methods, like UMAP [12] and tSNE [13], rely on a knearestneighbor graph; however, constructing an accurate knearestneighbor graph requires an accurate notion of cellcell similarity, which is nontrivial. The same can be said of networkbased methods, like PHATE [9] and diffusion maps [10], which build reductions using diffusion over the knearestneighbor graph. Real cellular populations may be both rare and subtly defined, so these challenges are significant roadblocks to realizing scRNAseq’s full potential.
Here, we introduce SCA (surprisal component analysis), an informationtheoretic dimensionality reduction method that identifies statistically informative signals in singlecell transcriptional data to enable deeper insight into complex tissues (Fig. 1a). SCA newly leverages the notion of surprisal, whereby less probable events are more informative when they occur, to assign a surprisal score to each transcript in each cell. By identifying the set of axes which captures the most of this surprising variation, SCA enables dimensionality reduction that better preserves information from rare and subtly defined cell types, uncovering them where existing methods cannot.
To demonstrate the utility of our approach, we ran SCA on real and simulated data with rare and subtly defined cellular populations, and assessed our ability to recover these populations downstream. For comparison, we also tested PCA, ICA, scVI, diffusion maps, PHATE, and six rare cell type discovery tools: RaceID [15], GiniClust [16], CellSIUS [17], FiRE [18], GeoSketch [19], and Hopper [20]. We show that SCA enables detection of small populations, such as gammadelta T cells and mucosalassociated invariant T (MAIT) cells, which are invisible to existing pipelines and yet critical to the study of tumor immunology [1, 2]. At the same time, SCA reductions better capture largerscale differences between more common cell types, enabling multiresolution analysis without the need for reclustering [21]. Beyond rare cell type recovery, we found that SCA more accurately recovers genegene relationships and restores dropouts when used as a basis for MAGIC imputation [3].
SCA is highly efficient, requires no information aside from transcript counts, and generalizes to data comprised of discrete cell types or continuous trajectories. The output components have a clear linear relationship with the original transcripts, facilitating straightforward biological verification and interpretation. We believe that SCA’s informationtheoretic approach is a mathematically justified and empirically useful approach to signal extraction in any highdimensional data modality, biological or otherwise.
Results
Overview of SCA
Like PCA and ICA, SCA projects the input data to a linear subspace spanned by a set of basis vectors, which we call surprisal components. SCA’s key conceptual advance is its novel approach for finding informative axes of variation, where an informative axis is one that separates cell types or captures biologically meaningful variation (Fig. 1a). Singlecell experiments have shown that the presence or absence of a small number of genes can determine a cell’s phenotype [6, 22, 23]. The key challenge, then, is to find and isolate these signals for each cell.
To this end, SCA first quantifies the importance of each transcript in each cell by converting transcript counts into surprisal scores (Fig. 1b; Additional File 1: Algorithm 1). To determine the score of a given transcript in a given cell, we compare its expression distribution among the cell’s k nearest neighbors to its global expression (i.e., to the expected distribution of the transcript among a set of k cells randomly chosen from the entire dataset) for a userspecified neighborhood size k. A transcript whose local expression deviates strongly from its global expression is more likely to inform the cell’s location in relation to other cells, and therefore its identity. We quantify this deviation through a Wilcoxon ranksum test, which produces a pvalue representing the probability of the observed deviation in a random set of k cells. Following Shannon’s definition [24], the surprisal or selfinformation of the observed deviation is then defined as the negative logarithm of its probability, i.e., as \(\log (p)\). This is a positive number which measures how surprising the transcript’s local expression is, in units of nats when the logarithm is natural (changing the base scales the scores by a constant factor, which does not affect SCA’s output). To distinguish over from underexpression, we flip the sign for underexpressed transcripts (Methods). The resulting scores are compiled into a surprisal matrix with the same dimensionality as the input data.
This strategy gives genes high positive scores where they are markers (genes that distinguish a cell type from the rest), scores near zero where they represent noise, and low negative scores where they are conspicuously absent (Fig. 1c). For example, consider a marker gene for a rare population. The gene is unexpressed over much of the data but highly expressed in cells belonging to the population. Thus, for these rare cells, the local expression is far higher than would be expected by chance, so the gene receives a high score for these cells. Likewise, a gene expressed everywhere except in a rare population receives low scores on members of the population. On the other hand, a noisy gene with no bearing on cellular identity receives low scores everywhere, since its distribution on kneighborhoods resembles that of random sets of k cells.
We next sought to distill the signal captured by the surprisal matrix into a lowdimensional representation (Fig. 1d; Additional File 1: Algorithm 2). As shown in Methods and in Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 1, the righteigenvectors of the surprisal matrix represent highly informative linear combinations of genes, which we call surprisal components (SCs). The first D righteigenvectors, which we denote \(v_1,...,v_D\), then span a linear subspace onto which we project the input matrix X of N cells by M genes. The resulting \(N\times D\) matrix is the output of SCA. We emphasize that while the construction of the surprisal matrix and of \(v_1,...,v_D\) is nonlinear, SCA’s output is a linear projection of its input to their span. This places SCA in the category of linear dimensionality reduction methods, together with PCA and ICA. This means that each of the output features is a weighted sum of genes, enabling straightforward interpretation. Furthermore, it enables many convenient workflows, including elbow plots (via the eigenvectors of the surprisal matrix, which we make readily available), and analysis of the gene loading vectors to interpret the components.
In summary, SCA accepts a transcript matrix and sets of knearest neighbors for each cell, finds transcripts that inform each cell’s locale, and distills this information into a smaller set of features. This process amplifies the locality signal of the input knearest neighbor data. For example, even if only 10% of a cell’s neighbors belong to the same population, this is still highly significant when the population comprises only 1% of the sample. SCA’s surprisal scores would reflect this, and the resulting components would better separate the rare cells, as we verify. The input neighborhoods can be specified arbitrarily, but by default SCA computes them via Euclidean distance on a PCA representation.
This signalboosting step can be repeated: from an initial SCA reduction, we can compute kneighborhoods using the Euclidean metric, use these neighborhoods to compute a surprisal matrix, and perform singular value decomposition to compute another SCA reduction. As we show for both real and Splattersimulated data [25], this often improves the representation of rare and subtly defined cell types (Figs. 2d and 3f). Intuitively, we begin with a weak notion of locality (provided by PCA) and continually refine it. In our experiments, we have found that performance usually stabilizes after 3–5 iterations and remains stable thereafter (Fig. 3f, Additional file 1: Fig. S2). Note that regardless of the number of iterations, SCA’s output remains a linear projection of its input, since iteration simply refines the subspace onto which SCA projects.
SCA recovers rare populations from noisy synthetic data
To test SCA’s power to uncover rare cell populations under a wide range of conditions, we used Splatter [25] to generate synthetic datasets with rare populations of various size and with varying numbers of marker genes. Each simulated dataset contains 1000 cells and 1000 genes, with 2–200 rare cells marked by 2–50 differentially expressed genes. The remaining simulation parameters, such as library size distribution, outlier gene probability, and gene expression distribution, were estimated by fitting Splatter to a widely used dataset of 3000 peripheral blood monocytes profiled by 10X genomics [27] (Methods).
To test the ability of SCA, ICA, and PCA to recover rare populations, for each combination of marker gene count and rare population size, we examined 10 replicate Splatter datasets generated with different random seeds. To assess population recovery, we computed Leiden clusterings from 20dimensional embeddings using each method, chose the subset of Leiden clusters that best identified the rare population, and computed the F1 score (Methods). We consider the rare population recovered if this F1 score is 0.9 or greater.
We found that on average, SCA requires 38% fewer marker genes than PCA and 39% fewer marker genes than ICA to recover a rare population of a given size (Fig. 2a). Similarly, for a fixed number of marker genes, SCA can detect rare populations on average 29% smaller than those of PCA, and 28% smaller than those of ICA. For example, when the rare population contains 100 cells, SCA requires an average of 6.4 marker genes to detect it, whereas PCA and ICA require on average 10.8 and 10.6 marker genes, respectively. A ttest across the 10 replicates confirms that SCA consistently requires fewer marker genes than either PCA or ICA (\(p<0.001\)). Thus, SCA enables better recovery both of rare and of subtly defined populations.
To allow more comprehensive benchmarking and visualization, we used the same Splatter parameters to generate a dataset where each cell has a 2.5% chance of belonging to a rare population with 10 marker genes. Due to sampling noise, the resulting dataset had 34 rare cells (3.4% of the total). We performed dimensionality reduction on this dataset using PCA, ICA, SCA, scVI, diffusion maps, and PHATE, as well as several tailored methods for rare cell type discovery: CellSIUS ([17]), RaceID ([15]), GiniClust3 ([16]), and FiRE([18]) (Fig. 2b, c, e). To obtain an F1 score from FiRE, which assigns cells a continuous rarity score, we consider all sets containing the top n rarest cells for \(1<n<1000\) and report the highest F1 score of any such set (Methods). As GiniClust3 did not identify any of the marker genes as having significantly high Gini index, it combined all cells into a single cluster. Similarly, CellSIUS did not identify any genes with a bimodal distribution and did not generate a clustering.
SCA cleanly separates the two populations (F1 score 0.971) whereas the other methods do not (F1 score \(<0.3\); Fig. 2e). In UMAP plots downstream of each reduction, only SCA shows a clear separation (Fig. 2e, top row). The first surprisal component (SC) distinguishes the rare population, whereas the leading principal, independent, or diffusion components do not (Fig. 2e, bottom row). Thus, SCA better extracts features that recover rare populations, enabling more sensitive and specific detection.
We found that SCA’s performance improves with more iterations and is stable for neighborhood sizes ranging from 2 to 20 (Fig. 2d). At larger neighborhood sizes, the F1 score is comparable to that achieved by other methods. This behavior is expected: since large neighborhoods cannot be contained in very small populations, SCA has limited ability to identify populations with similar or smaller size than the chosen neighborhood size. We therefore recommend choosing a neighborhood size smaller than the expected size of the rarest cellular population in the sample. Our simulations (Figs. 2d and 3f) show strong cluster recovery even at neighborhood sizes smaller than 10, so this is not a substantial limitation.
SCA reveals the landscape of cytotoxic T cell subtypes
Novel therapies increasingly leverage the immune system to fight disease, and the complexity and cellular diversity of immunological tissues make them ideal targets for scRNAseq [6, 23, 28]. However, these tissues also challenge the technology in a variety of ways: they contain diverse cell types with rare but clinically important subtypes, and the expression of individual surface receptors has outsize effects on phenotype, leading to many subtly defined cell types [23, 28]. We therefore examined whether SCA can find and distill these signals to reveal a richer landscape of immune cell types.
We obtained a collection of 307 cytotoxic T cells profiled using Smartseq 3 (SS3) [14]. After standard log transcript per million preprocessing with a pseudocount of 1 (Methods), we computed 20dimensional reductions using PCA, ICA, SCA, scVI, and a diffusion map. We ran SCA with 15 iterations and the default neighborhood size of 15. We followed each reduction with standard downstream steps: 15nearest neighbor graph construction using the Euclidean metric, UMAP embedding, and Leiden clustering. In addition, we computed a twodimensional embedding using PHATE and a clustering using PHATE’s own clustering function based on internally computed similarities.
The PCA, ICA, and scVI reductions suggest that the data is homogeneous: the UMAP visualizations are globular, with no distinct clusters, and there is no obvious structure in the leading components (Fig. 3c and d). On the other hand, SCA’s embedding reveals several clearly separated populations, summarized by 9 Leiden clusters (Fig. 3a). Differential gene expression analysis shows that these correspond to known cell types (Fig. 3b). For example, clusters 1 and 2 contain Gammadelta T cells, as indicated by expression of the gamma and deltareceptors TRGV9 and TRDV2 [11]. Cluster 4 expresses SLC4A10, TRAV12, and LTK, strongly suggesting that this cluster contains MAIT cells [2, 26]. CD4+ T helper cells group neatly in cluster 9, whereas high TIGIT levels in cluster 7 suggest an inhibitory phenotype [29, 30]. Clusters 3 and 8 express standard cytotoxic effector genes like granzymes and perforins, whereas clusters 5 and 6 express CD8 but have low granzyme expression, suggesting recently activated CD8 T cells.
We further tested the ability of each method to detect key immunological marker genes (Fig. 3d). The UMAP plots derived from the PCA, ICA, scVI, PHATE, and diffusion map representations do not separate cells based on key immunological markers, whereas the SCAderived UMAP plot does. To quantify this finding and see how it affects de novo population discovery, we assessed whether the Leiden clusters computed downstream of each representation were concordant with a markerbased classification. We defined CD8+ T cells as those expressing CD8A; CD4+ T cells as those expressing CD4; gammadelta T cells as those expressing at least two of TRGV9, TRDV2, and TRDC; and MAIT cells as those expressing at least two of SLC4A10, TRAV12, and LTK. We computed F1 scores for the recovery of each of these types as described for synthetic data and in Methods. We did the same for clusterings output by CellSIUS, RaceID, GiniClust, GeoSketch, and Hopper. To produce clusterings using Hopper, we performed Leidenclustering on a 50point Hopper sketch of the data, then assigned each cell the cluster label of its nearest subsampled cell. For GeoSketch, we projected the data to 20dimensional PCA coordinates computed from a 50point sketch, and then computed Leiden clusters. SCA consistently outperforms the other methods in identifying these immunological classes (Fig. 3e). As with the synthetic data, we found that the leading surprisal components distinguish cell types, whereas leading independent and principal components do not (Fig. 3c). Thus, SCA is bettersuited to detect subtly defined immune cell types.
We next performed robustness analysis to see how SCA’s performance varies under different choices of neighborhood size k and different numbers of iterations (Fig. 3f). As with the synthetic datasets, running more iterations often improves the representation; notably, the CD4+ subtype is not consistently clearly captured until at least the third iteration. After 3, 4, or 5 iterations, SCA performs well on all subtypes over a wide range of neighborhood sizes (from 5 to at least 90). Very small neighborhood sizes (\(<5\)) do not perform as well, likely due to a lack of statistical power. On the other hand, results on simulated data suggest limited ability to recover cellular populations with size similar to or smaller than the neighborhood size (Fig. 2d). For most datasets, this leads to a wide span of acceptable choices of neighborhood size. We also found that SCA’s performance is robust to the number of components in the reduction, performing well when as few as 5 and as many as 50 components are taken (Additional File 1: Fig. S6c).
While singlecell analysis pipelines frequently subset to highly variable genes (HVG) to remove noisy or lowly expressed transcripts, marker genes for small populations intrinsically have low variance. To ensure that these were not removed in the above experiments, we did not perform highly variable gene (HVG) selection prior to dimensionality reduction. To test the effect of HVG subsetting, we repeated all of these experiments on the same dataset after filtering to the 1000 most variable genes and log transcript per million preprocessing (Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 6; Additional File 1: Fig. S6a,b). We found that SCA performs substantially better when all genes are kept, and outperforms the other tested methods regardless of whether gene filtering is performed.
SCA distinguishes known cell types profiled by CITEseq
To evaluate whether SCA’s reductions better detect known populations of cells in a largerscale immmunological singlecell dataset, we obtained a CITEseq dataset from Hao et al. [6], in which hundreds of thousands of PBMCs from 8 human donors were subjected in parallel to transcriptomic profiling and to surface receptor profiling with a panel of 228 antibodies. The authors use both modalities, and input from human experts, to produce a cell type classification, which we take as a ground truth. We subsetted the data to T cells, yielding 73,000 cells across all donors, and assess performance in each donor individually. For each donor, we computed 50dimensional representations using PCA, ICA, SCA, scVI, and a diffusion map. We also compute 2dimensional PHATE embeddings, and clusterings using PHATE’s builtin function.
Compared to PCA and ICA, SCA consistently generates more structured UMAP plots downstream, with clearer visual separation between cell types. UMAP plots computed from PCA, ICA, and SCA are shown for patient 1 in Fig. 4a, and similar UMAP plots for the remaining patients and reductions are provided in Additional file 1: Fig. S4. We observe similar improvements when plotting the first two components of each reduction against each other (Additional file 1: Fig. S5). We hypothesized that this separation leads to more accurate clusterings downstream. To test this theory, we performed Leiden clustering [31] on each representation with resolution 1.0 and computed the adjusted mutual information (AMI) between the Leiden clusters and the true cell labels [32]. For further comparison, we also computed AMIs for Leiden clusterings computed from GeoSketch and Hopper reductions, and clusterings returned by GiniClust3 [16], CellSIUS [17], and RaceID [15]. Across all patients, the SCAderived Leiden clusterings achieved the highest AMI with the true cell labels (Fig. 4b). Thus, SCA representations enable more accurate downstream recovery of cellular populations in a sample.
To determine the accuracy with which SCA and other methods detect each of the known cellular populations, we used the F1 score measure (Methods). Across all donors, we found that SCA consistently ranks among the highest F1 scores, with some cell types recoverable only by SCA (Fig. 4c). For example, in patient 1, SCA recovers CD4 cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CD4 CTL), a subtly defined population distinguished from CD8 CTLs mainly by the presence of CD4, with F1 score 0.97. As notable exceptions, CellSIUS and GiniClust perform exceptionally well on the CD4 proliferating population, with CellSIUS also outperforming other methods on the CD8 proliferating and doublenegative T populations. We suspect that the Leiden clusterings underperform here due to theoretical limitations of communitydetection algorithms to detect very small populations, as discussed in Kumpula et al. [33].
SCA improves graphbased imputation
Dropouts and technical noise often obscure genegene relationships in singlecell data. Imputation aims to recover lost transcripts and restore these relationships. MAGIC [3] tackles imputation by constructing a diffusion operator to share information across similar cells, achieving better recovery of genegene interactions than a variety of other methods, including simple kNN imputation, lowrank approximation, and smoothing based on diffusion components [10, 34, 35]. By default, MAGIC computes cellular similarity using the Euclidean distance in PCA space. Since SCA better separates biological cell types, we pursued the intuition that using Euclidean distance in an SCA reduction would allow MAGIC to build a better diffusion operator, yielding more accurate imputation. We therefore formulated SCAMAGIC, which performs diffusion over an SCA embedding instead of a PCA embedding (Methods).
To test the ability of each method to recover dropouts from the 1000cell Splatter synthetic dataset analyzed in Fig. 2b–e, we performed imputation using MAGIC and SCAMAGIC and measured the Pearson correlation between the imputed values of the marker genes and an artificial “groundtruth” marker gene expressing 1 transcript on each rare cell and 0 transcripts elsewhere (due to normalization, the number of transcripts expressed in the rare population does not affect the Pearson correlation). We also tested SAVER [36], another imputation approach that uses regression instead of diffusion. As shown in Fig. 5a, SCAMAGIC achieves the highest correlation between imputed marker genes and the groundtruth marker gene (correlation \(\sim 0.7\)).
To assess recovery of genegene relationships, we ran MAGIC and SCAMAGIC on the cytotoxic T cells from [14]. We find that SCAMAGIC best recovers the complementary relationship between CD8 expression and CD4 expression among alphabeta T cells, with T helper cells having high CD4 levels and gammadelta T cells expressing neither surface receptor, consistent with the literature [11, 37] (Fig. 5b, top). Both MAGIC and SCAMAGIC report an inverse relationship between the expression levels of granzyme B and granzyme K. However, SCAbased MAGIC assigns the T helper cells lower granzyme B levels than the other populations. This finding is concordant with flowcytometry results, which indicate that CD8+ T cells are the primary secretors of granzyme B [38]. SAVERimputed data does not show smooth correlations and resembles the raw data.
To compare dropout recovery of MAGIC and SCAMAGIC on real data, we created lowcoverage versions of the cytotoxic T cell dataset by setting 10%, 30%, 50%, or 90% of the nonzero transcript counts to zero and examined the values of these droppedout transcripts after imputation. Higher imputed values indicate better transcript recovery. For most genes, SCAMAGIC and MAGIC perform similarly (Fig. 5c). However, SCAMAGIC outperforms MAGIC on a small set of key marker genes, including CD8A, CD8B, CD4, TIGIT, KLRC1, and the gammadelta marker genes TRDV2 and TRGV9 (Fig. 5d). Since these genes define important T cell subclasses, this improvement is consequential.
The creation of false positive signals is a concern in imputation [39]. We found that SCAMAGIC performed at least as well as MAGIC at avoiding creation of false positive gene counts and artificial marker genes (Additional File 1: Fig. S7).
SCA scales to large datasets
As improving technologies generate ever larger datasets, the computational tools used to analyze these datasets must scale accordingly. SCA meets this need with fast runtimes and modest memory overhead. Asymptotically, SCA’s runtime and memory overhead are both linear in the size of the input dataset (Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 2; Additional File 1: Fig. S1). To test this empirically, we measured runtime and peak memory usage for one iteration of SCA on data of varying sizes (Fig. S1). We produced test datasets by taking random subsets of patient 1’s T cell data from Hao et al. [6] with varying numbers of cells and genes. For all tests, we used a neighborhood size of 15. As expected, we find SCA’s runtime and memory performance scale linearly with increasing numbers of cells. On a subset with 9000 cells and over 20,000 genes, SCA takes 3 min and 15 s to run with a peak allocation of 561 MB. This is only slightly slower than PCA, which finishes in 2 min and 10 s and allocates 179 MB (ICA is somewhat more computationally demanding, requiring 266 s and allocating over 4GB). SCA’s linear scaling makes it tractable even on the very largest singlecell datasets; for example, on a mouse brain dataset from Saunders et al. with 939,489 cells and 20,658 genes [4], SCA runs in 5.5 h and allocates a maximum of about 29 GB, well within the range of most modern day computers. Subsampling techniques that preserve rare cell types, such as Hopper [20] and Geosketch [19], may be combined with SCA to enable finegrained analyses of these massive datasets even on a laptop. We can reduce the memory overhead further by processing the data in chunks containing a userspecified number of genes (Methods). Chunk size is implemented as a parameter in the core function of SCA’s Python package.
SCA performs well in the presence of batch effects
Singlecell experiments often include data from different samples, and sometimes different donors, introducing unwanted technical variation known as batch effects. While SCA is not designed to remove batch effects, we aimed to verify that its signalboosting procedure does not emphasize them at the expense of true biological variation. To this end, we obtained scRNAseq data comprising approximately 70,000 CD34+ cells from 3 human donors [40], combined the data without performing batch correction, computed PCA and SCA reductions with 20 components each, and assessed the impact of donor on each reduction. UMAP plots downstream of SCA showed significantly more overlap between donors than those downstream of PCA, and performing more iterations of SCA increased the degree of overlap between donors while keeping biological cell type separate (Fig. 6a). To quantify this finding, we used the silhouette score [41] to measure separation between donors and between cell types. The donor silhouette score is lower when using SCA, and decreases with more iterations, indicating better batch integration (Fig. 6b). By contrast, the cell type silhouette score was higher for SCA than for PCA, consistent with our other results. Thus, SCA’s reductions emphasize cell typerelated biological differences over technical batch effects.
Discussion
SCA offers an informationtheoretic approach to measuring and extracting salient transcriptional signals in singlecell data, enabling downstream analyses at unprecedented resolution. By iteratively boosting the localityspecific signal of individual transcripts, SCA uncovers clinically relevant immunological populations that are invisible to existing approaches.
A variety of approaches have arisen that are specifically tailored to the problem of rare cell type recovery. However, we find that these methods have limiting assumptions [16, 18] or rely on potentially inaccurate or illdefined clustering procedures [15, 17] that limit performance. GiniClust [16] assumes that genes with high Gini index are the most important; yet, we demonstrated that this is not always the case (e.g., the marker genes in the synthetic dataset were not marked as having highGini index by the algorithm). RaceID and CellSIUS both compute initial clusterings which are then individually refined. However, an accurate initial clustering may be difficult to obtain when cell types of interest are rare or subtly defined, and clusterbased approaches are unsuitable when cells form more continuous transcriptional structures, such as developmental trajectories, which do not neatly partition [42]. On the other hand, FiRE [18] sidesteps the limitations of clustering by assigning each cell a rarity score according to its degree of isolation, but the notion of isolation in turn relies on a meaningful celltocell distance metric, which is not readily derived. Hopper [20] reduces the data in the hopes of increasing the proportion of rare cells, but its approach requires a reliable distance metric and requires discarding observations. For the latter two methods, one might improve performance by using Euclidean distance in an SCA representation as a distance metric. Our work suggests that the right dimensionality reduction can enable recovery of even rare and subtly defined populations.
SCA’s surprisal scores are similar in principle to the inverse document frequency (IDF) transform, a normalization approach widely used in text processing and in some singlecell applications, whereby each feature (gene) is weighted by the logarithm of its inverse frequency [43]. Like SCA, IDF gives rarely seen features more weight; however, it does not consider the localityspecific context of each feature measurement, so it lacks the statistical power to detect locally enriched signals. By incorporating counts from local neighborhoods of each cell, SCA allows genes to have variable scores across the dataset, achieving highmagnitude scores where they are discriminative and nearzero scores where they are noise (Fig. 1c). Our approach is designed to reflect true biology, where genes may be expressed sporadically across the entire dataset but mark informative distinctions only within a small subpopulation.
SCA is also conceptually similar to surprisal analysis [44], which compares observed data to a precomputed balance state to identify meaningful deviations. Originally developed for thermodynamics, these methods have recently found use in bulk transcriptomic analysis of biological systems in flux, such as cancer cells undergoing epithelialtomesenchymal transition and carcinogenesis [45,46,47,48]. For example, Gross et al. [45] perform singular value decomposition on a surprisal matrix derived from time series microarrays to identify bulk transcriptomic signatures that predict eventual malignancy. In their work, the surprisal of a transcript is defined by the negative logarithmic fold change of the transcript from its value in the balance state. We attempted to generalize this idea to singlecell data by treating each cell as a separate time point, and computing surprisals as negative logfold changes between observed transcript counts and transcript expression means across all cells. However, we show this extended notion of surprisal is underpowered and inaccurate for singlecell data (Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 5; Additional File 1: Fig. S6), because individual transcript counts are themselves noisy. For example, on the cytotoxic T cell dataset, this approach fails to separate CD8 from CD4 T cells (Fig. S6). SCA’s novel approach of testing expression in neighborhoods of cells instead of individual cells lends statistical power and limits the impact of noise and dropouts, especially in combination with the robust Wilcoxon test.
Data visualization, which features prominently in many singlecell pipelines [12, 49], differs from dimensionality reduction, on which we focus. Whereas visualization aims to produce a twodimensional rendering of the data, dimensionality reduction produces a smaller, but still manydimensional representation which is then analyzed further downstream. Thus, data visualization tools complement dimensionality reduction rather than substitute for it. Indeed, visualizations are often built on dimensionalityreduced data; for example, UMAP plots in existing literature are often computed on PCA or ICA reductions [4, 50]. SCA complements existing visualization tools to facilitate exploratory analysis (Figs. 4a, 3a, and Additional file 1: Fig. S4).
SCA also combines well with sketching techniques, such as Geosketch [19] and Hopper [20], which generate subsamples of cells that retain transcriptional diversity. In turn, these sketching techniques rely on a lowdimensional representation of cells, which SCA may provide. As motivation for the latter, we have shown that SCA is better at identifying rare cell types than these sketching techniques.
Although the process that generates the surprisal components is nonlinear, requiring nearestneighbor graphs and Wilcoxon score computation, SCA’s output is a linear projection of its input. This places SCA firmly in the linear category, together with PCA and ICA; indeed, for fixed dimension D, the coordinate systems defined by SCA and by these methods are related by rotation in the original highdimensional space. Intuitively, SCA changes the “perspective” from which the data is viewed. It is remarkable, then, that SCA’s reductions look so different in downstream analyses from those of PCA and ICA (e.g., Fig. 3a). This observation is possibly because highdimensional space offers a far wider variety of perspectives than the threedimensional space we often think in, giving linear methods more richness than they are usually credited for.
Conclusion
Dimensionality reduction addresses the underlying goal of nearly all singlecell analytic pipelines―to determine which cells are phenotypically similar to one another or, in mathematical terms, to derive a biologically meaningful metric between cells. If we could meet this goal perfectly, we could immediately obtain perfect clusterings of singlecell data (each cluster would be a connected component of the knearest neighbor graph), perform perfect batch correction (by integrating cells based on phenotypic similarity), and substantially improve trajectory inference (by connecting similar cells along a continuous path). Dimensionality reduction represents singlecell data in a lowerdimensional Euclidean space, which inherits natural metrics (e.g., the standard Euclidean distance). Using information theory, SCA provides an embedding where Euclidean distance better captures biological similarity, causing cells with similar phenotypes to cluster together.
Methods
Details of the SCA Algorithm
Surprisal matrix computation (Additional File 1: Algorithm 1).
Given the input data X with N cells and M genes, a target dimensionality D, and a neighborhood size k, we first compute a Ddimensional PCA reduction of X. Using Euclidean distance in this PCA space, we compute for each cell c a neighborhood \(N_k(c)\) containing the k nearest cells. Alternatively, the user may specify neighborhoods manually as lists of indices.
For each gene g and cell c, we then assess the significance of g’s expression in \(N_k(c)\) as compared to its global expression. Under the null hypothesis, where g is randomly expressed, the local distribution \(N_k(c)\) should be similar to the global expression. Using a Wilcoxon ranksum test, we obtain a twosided pvalue \(p_{c,g}\) representing the probability of the observed difference under this null hypothesis. We also offer two alternative pvalues based on different models: a ttest, and a binomial test using only the binarized counts. We strongly recommend the Wilcoxon model for its flexibility to a wide range of data distributions, and robustness to different preprocessing protocols.
Small pvalues indicate very unlikely events under the null hypothesis, leading to high surprisal. However, since tens of thousands of genes are often measured for each cell, we would expect \(p_{c,g}\) to be very low for some cellgene combinations even in the absence of true biological signal. We therefore adjust for multipletesting within each cell using a familywise error rate correction. If we assume that genes are uncorrelated, this correction takes the form
where M is the number of genes. The corrected value \(\tilde{p}_{c,g}\) represents the probability that any gene has the observed deviation from the null distribution in c’s neighborhood. However, in real singlecell data, genes are often highly correlated, so the effective number of independent features is far fewer than M. As detailed in Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 4 and Additional File 1: Algorithm 3, we can identify a reasonable exponent \(N_t\) by sampling many random sets of k cells from X, computing pvalues from these random neighborhoods, and observing the distribution of these pvalues. This provides a background model for contextualizing the \(p_{c,g}\) values computed from the actual locally derived knearest neighborhoods and leads to the correction
where \(N_t\) is often far less than M. When \(N_t\) is computed as in Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 4, SCA does not produce erroneous clusters on negative control datasets which lack intrinsic structure, and randomly generated neighborhoods yield scores clustered around zero (Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 3; Additional File 1: Fig. S3). SCA computes \(N_t\) in this way by default; however, users may also manually define \(N_t\) to adjust the balance between sensitivity and specificity.
We next convert the corrected pvalues \(\tilde{p}_{c,g}\) into surprisal scores I(c, g). Shannon [24] defines the surprisal or selfinformation of an event with probability p as \(\log (p)\). Intuitively, less probable events are more informative when they occur. For a given cell c and gene g, \(\tilde{p_{c,g}}\) is the probability of the event that that one of c’s genes has a local distribution at least as extreme as the observed distribution of g, under the null hypothesis of random gene expression. Thus, \(\log (\tilde{p_{c,g}})\) is the surprisal of this event and defines the magnitude of I(c, g).
To distinguish overexpression from underexpression, we give I(c, g) a positive sign if g is overexpressed in c’s neighborhood and a negative sign if it is underexpressed. Under the Wilcoxon model, over or underexpression is determined by the sum of the ranks of g’s values in the kneighborhood of c among all values g takes, which we denote \(\text {ranksum}(g, N_k(c))\). Under the null hypothesis, this quantity follows a normal distribution with mean \(\frac{k(Nk)}{2}\). Thus, we obtain
Computing surprisal components
From the surprisal scores I(c, g), SCA next seeks to generate an informative linear combination of genes. For a given combination defined by
we say that \(\tilde{g}\) has loadings \(\alpha _1,...,\alpha _n\). For a fixed cell c, we formulate the surprisal score of \(\tilde{g}\) as
We then define the overall overall surprisal score of \(\tilde{g}\) by taking the norm over all cells:
or, in matrix notation,
where \({\textbf {S}}\) denotes the surprisal matrix and \(\mathbf {\alpha }=\langle \alpha _1,...,\alpha _M\rangle\).
We now seek the metagene \(\tilde{g}\), defined by the loadings \(\alpha _1,...,\alpha _N\), that maximizes \(I(\tilde{g})\). Since we can achieve arbitrarily large values of \(I(\tilde{g})\) by scaling the coefficients, we constrain the loading coefficients to have norm 1, that is:
It is a standard linear algebra result that this maximum is realized by the leading righteigenvector of \(\textbf{S}\) (proof in Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 1 and [51]). Thus, the first surprisal component loading vector is simply the first right eigenvector of \({\textbf {S}}\), which we denote \(\mathbf {v_1}\). To obtain additional surprisal components, we repeat the optimization with the constraint
It is straightforward to see (Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 1) that this yields the second principal component loading vector \(\mathbf {v_2}\) of \({\textbf {S}}\). Continuing, we see that the loading vectors for surprisal components are simply the right eigenvectors of \({\textbf {S}}\).
SCA next computes the values of the first D surprisal components over the input data (not the surprisal scores). That is,
Note that the surprisal components are linear functions of the input data, despite the nonlinear construction of \(\textbf{S}\). Although the loadings are computed on \(\textbf{S}\), the values of the components are computed by applying these loadings to \({\textbf {X}}\).
If desired, we can now use the resulting Ddimensional representation of X to compute a Euclidean knearest neighbor graph, compute a new surprisal matrix from these neighborhoods, and perform SVD on this new matrix to produce another Ddimensional representation of X. This can be repeated arbitrarily many times, and often improves performance up to 3–4 iterations (Fig. 3f, Additional file 1: Fig. S2).
Formal pseudocode for this algorithm is provided in Additional File 1: Algorithm 2.
Time and memory optimizations
Computing the surprisal scores I(c, g) for all cells c and genes g requires NM Wilcoxon ranksum tests. However, we can rapidly produce all of the ranksum statistics with minimal memory overhead as follows:

1.
Divide the genes into chunks of a userspecified size C, depending on memory constraints (default 1000). Let \(G_1=\{g_1,...,g_C\}, G2=\{g_{C+1},....,g_{2C}\}\), and so on.

2.
For each gene chunk \(G_i\):

(a)
Subset X to genes in \(G_i\), obtaining a reduced dataset \(X_i\)

(b)
rank each column of \(X_i\) to obtain a rank matrix \(R_i\)

(c)
Multiply the neighborhood adjacency matrix A with \(R_i\), yielding a ranksum matrix over neighborhoods, denoted \(S_i\), overwriting \(R_i\)

(d)
Convert these ranksums into pvalues under to the null model, overwriting \(S_i\) with a pvalue matrix \(P_i\)

(e)
Convert these pvalues into surprisal scores, as described above and in Additional File 1: Algorithm 1, overwriting \(P_i\) with surprisal scores \(S_i\).

(f)
Sparsify \(S_i\) and store it. (\(S_i\) is frequently quite sparse).

(a)

3.
Concatenate the matrices \(S_i\) horizontally to obtain the surprisal matrix S.
Using this approach, we only need to compute ranks for each gene once, and we avoid storing dense matrices of size larger than \(N\times C\). Since A has at most k nonzero elements per row, the sparse matrix multiplication in step 2c requires only O(kNC) time. The remaining steps are easily accomplished with vectorized functions from scipy [52] and numpy [53].
With these improvements, SCA is nearly as fast as ICA and PCA, and uses significantly less memory than ICA (Additional File 1; Fig. S1). We include more indepth time and memory benchmarks in Additional File 1: Supplementary Note 2.
Generating F1 scores from clusterings
To assess the accuracy with which a set of T clusters \(c_1,...,c_T\) recovers a known population P, we used the following procedure:

1.
Rank all clusters by the degree of overlap with P, i.e., by \(\frac{c_i\cap P}{c_i}\). Ties may be handled arbitrarily. Assume without loss of generality that the indexing \(c_1,...,c_T\) ranks the clusters in this way. Let S be an empty set.

2.
for i in 1,2,...,T:

(a)
Measure the F1 score of \(S\cup c_i\) with respect to P.

(b)
If this F1 score is higher than that of S, add \(c_i\) to S. Otherwise, stop and return the current F1 score of S with respect to P.

(a)

3.
Return the F1 score of S (if not already returned above).
If the target population is a union of clusters, this procedure is guaranteed to find it and return an F1 score of 1; otherwise, it finds a set of clusters whose union approximates P and returns the F1 score of their union with respect to P.
Synthetic data experiments using splatter
The synthetic dataset analyzed in Fig. 2 was generated using Splatter [25]. All but two parameters were determined by fitting the PBMC dataset from [27]. The fitted parameters are listed below:

Mean rate parameter: 13.5

Mean shape parameter: 0.583

Library size location parameter: 7.69

Library size scale parameter: 0.412

Outlier probability: 0.025

Outlier location parameter: 4.761

Outlier scale parameter: 1.037

Biological Coefficient of Variation dispersion: 0.2825

Biological Coefficient of Variation degrees of freedom: 30.37
The two remaining parameters are (1) the probability of a gene being differentially expressed between the two groups and (2) the probability that a cell belongs to the smaller of the two groups (the “rare” population). We test all combinations of these two parameters for rare cell fractions ranging from 5 cells (0.5%) to 200 cells (20%) and for marker gene probabilities ranging from 0.2 to 5% in increments of 0.2%. For each combination, we generate ten synthetic datasets with different random seeds and run PCA, ICA, and SCA to make 20dimensional representations of each replicate, keeping up to 5 iterations for SCA. We then compute Leiden clusterings on the 15nearest Euclidean neighbor graph of each representation, with the default resolution of 1.0. From these clusterings we compute F1 scores for recovery of the rare population as described just above.
To determine how many marker genes are required to recover a population of a specific size, we filtered to all trials with the given population size, and recorded the lowest number of marker genes in any trial with F1 score greater than 0.9. We performed this analysis separately for each random seed used to generate replicates, resulting in 10 marker gene percentage values for each combination of rare cell fraction and method. These values are plotted in Fig. 2a.
Cytotoxic T cell population discovery
We extracted all cytotoxic T cells from the dataset in [14] using the authors’ cell type annotations, obtaining 307 cells in total. For PCA, we used scanpy’s pca function with 20 components. For ICA, we used the FastICA function of sklearn [54, 55], again with 20 components. For SCA, we ran five iterations with 20 components each, starting with the PCA representation. We ran scVI with default parameters on the top 4000 most variable genes (we observed little difference in performance when running on all genes). 15nearest neighbors graphs were computed in each representation using Euclidean distance, and the results were used to generate the UMAP plots in Fig. 3. We computed diffusion maps using the 15nearest neighbor graph downstream of the PCA representation, keeping 20 components (eigenvalue analysis confirms that this is a reasonable number of components, with further components adding noise). We computed the PHATE representation using the default parameters of the package (100 PCs, 5nearest neighbors). Leiden clusters in each representation were computed downstream of Euclidean 15nearest neighbor graphs, with the default resolution of 1.0. For PHATE, we use the builtin phate.cluster.kmeans with k=5. Dotplots to show expression of key marker genes were generated using scanpy’s dotplot function.
T cell data from Hao et al.
We obtained transcriptomic data from the authors’ website at https://atlas.fredhutch.org/nygc/multimodalpbmc/. The logtransformed count data was subset to T cells using the authors’ annotations, yielding 73,259 T cells and 20,729 genes across all 8 patients. We then split by patient into 8 donorspecific datasets. For each donor, we computed an SCA reduction using 50 components and 5 iterations, with a neighborhood size of 100 (a larger neighborhood size is appropriate for larger datasets; neighborhood size did not greatly affect performance). Fifty principal components were computed using scanpy’s pca function, and 50 independent components were computed with the FastICA implementation provided by scikitlearn [54, 55]. To ensure convergence of FastICA, we raised the maximum number of iterations to 500 from the default of 200. We ran scVI with default parameters (learning rate 0.001, 400 warmup epochs for KL divergence term) and a 50dimensional latent embedding space to match the dimensionality of the PCA, ICA, and SCA embeddings. Diffusion maps were likewise computed in 50 dimensions. We computed 15nearestneighbor graphs in each representation using the Euclidean distance metric, then ran UMAP [12] and Leiden clustering [31] on the resulting neighborhood graphs. For Leiden clustering, we use the default resolution of 1.0. PHATE embedding and clustering was run with default parameters using the phate Python package [9].
Imputation using MAGIC
To create SCAMAGIC, we used the graphtools package to build a diffusion operator based on a 20dimensional SCA reduction, with default parameters inherited from MAGIC (knn = 5, knn_max = 15, decay = 1, thresh = 0.0001). We used the same parameters to construct an analogous operator from a 20dimensional PCA embedding. We then build MAGIC instances from these two operators, with time parameter t = 5, and compare performance on various datasets.
To generate artificial dropouts in the cytotoxic T cell data, we replaced a random subset of the pooled nonzero transcript measurements with zeros, comprising either 10%, 30%, 50%, or 90% of the total nonzero measurements. After performing imputation, we reexamined the transcripts that had been eliminated and checked whether they had been restored. High imputed values indicate wellrestored transcripts.
CD34+ immune cells for batch performance benchmarking
We downloaded the training data from the multimodal singlecell integration challenge [40], consisting of 70,988 cells from 3 donors. The data were preprocessed by the original authors using a log transcriptspermillion transformation; we applied no further processing and used the cell types from the original authors to compute silhouette scores and visualize the data. We performed SCA with a wilcoxon scoring model and the default neighborhood size of 15, reducing to 20 components.
Availability of data and materials
SCA is implemented in Python, installed on PyPi for ease of use, fully documented, and offers ready integration with scanpy, a popular scRNA processing framework. Its source code is available under the MIT open source license, and the latest version can be found at https://github.com/bendemeo/shannonca [56]. A stable release is also available on Zenodo (doi:10.5281/zenodo.7854155, [57]). API documentation, installation instructions, and vignettes can be found at https://shannonca.readthedocs.io. For convenience, links to these pages are compiled along with a brief description of the method at http://sca.csail.mit.edu/.
The SMARTseq3 data containing cytotoxic T cells has been deposited by the original authors under ArrayExpress EMTAB8735 at the European Bioinformatics Institute [58]. The T cell data from Hao et. al. [6] is available through GEO (GEO: GSE128639, [59]). The CD34+ immune cell dataset used for batch performance benchmarking is available as training data for the online Kaggle competition at https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/openproblemsmultimodal/data.
References
Park JH, Lee HK. Function of γδ T cells in tumor immunology and their application to cancer therapy. Exp Mol Med. 2021;53(3):318–27.
Parrot T, Healy K, Boulouis C, Sobkowiak MJ, Leeansyah E, Aleman S, et al. Expansion of donorunrestricted MAIT cells with enhanced cytolytic function suitable for TCR redirection. JCI Insight. 2021;6(5).
Van Dijk D, Sharma R, Nainys J, Yim K, Kathail P, Carr AJ, et al. Recovering gene interactions from singlecell data using data diffusion. Cell. 2018;174(3):716–29.
Saunders A, Macosko EZ, Wysoker A, Goldman M, Krienen FM, de Rivera H, et al. Molecular diversity and specializations among the cells of the adult mouse brain. Cell. 2018;174(4):1015–30.
Zheng GX, Terry JM, Belgrader P, Ryvkin P, Bent ZW, Wilson R, et al. Massively parallel digital transcriptional profiling of single cells. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1–12.
Hao Y, Hao S, AndersenNissen E, Mauck WM, Zheng S, Butler A, Lee MJ, Wilk AJ, Darby C, Zager M, Hoffman P. Integrated analysis of multimodal singlecell data. Cell. 2021;184(13):3573–87.
Nascimento M, Silva FFe, Sáfadi T, Nascimento ACC, Ferreira TEM, Barroso LMA, et al. Independent component analysis (ICA) basedclustering of temporal RNAseq data. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(7):e0181195.
Lopez R, Regier J, Cole MB, Jordan MI, Yosef N. Deep generative modeling for singlecell transcriptomics. Nat Methods. 2018;15(12):1053–8.
Moon KR, van Dijk D, Wang Z, Gigante S, Burkhardt DB, Chen WS, et al. Visualizing structure and transitions in highdimensional biological data. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(12):1482–92.
Coifman RR, Lafon S, Lee AB, Maggioni M, Nadler B, Warner F, et al. Geometric diffusions as a tool for harmonic analysis and structure definition of data: diffusion maps. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005;102(21):7426–31.
Holtmeier W, Kabelitz D. \(\gamma \delta\) T cells link innate and adaptive immune responses. In: Mechanisms of epithelial defense, vol 86. Karger Publishers; 2005. p. 151–183.
McInnes L, Healy J, Melville J. Umap: uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. 2018. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426.
Maaten Lvd, Hinton G. Visualizing data using tSNE. J Mach Learn Res. 2008;9(Nov):2579–605.
HagemannJensen M, Ziegenhain C, Chen P, Ramsköld D, Hendriks GJ, Larsson AJ, et al. Singlecell RNA counting at allele and isoform resolution using Smartseq3. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(6):708–14.
Wen L, Tang F. How to catch rare cell types. Nature. 2015;525(7568):197–8.
Dong R, Yuan GC. GiniClust3: a fast and memoryefficient tool for rare cell type identification. BMC Bioinformatics. 2020;21:1–7.
Wegmann R, Neri M, Schuierer S, Bilican B, Hartkopf H, Nigsch F, et al. CellSIUS provides sensitive and specific detection of rare cell populations from complex singlecell RNAseq data. Genome Biol. 2019;20(1):1–21.
Jindal A, Gupta P, Sengupta D, et al. Discovery of rare cells from voluminous single cell expression data. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1–9.
Hie B, Cho H, DeMeo B, Bryson B, Berger B. Geometric sketching compactly summarizes the singlecell transcriptomic landscape. Cell Syst. 2019;8(6):483–93.
DeMeo B, Berger B. Hopper: a mathematically optimal algorithm for sketching biological data. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(Supplement_1):i236–41.
Hie B, Peters J, Nyquist SK, Shalek AK, Berger B, Bryson BD. Computational methods for singlecell RNA sequencing. Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci. 2020;3:339–64.
Wilk AJ, Rustagi A, Zhao NQ, Roque J, MartínezColón GJ, McKechnie JL, et al. A singlecell atlas of the peripheral immune response in patients with severe COVID19. Nat Med. 2020;26(7):1070–6.
Andreatta M, CorriaOsorio J, Müller S, Cubas R, Coukos G, Carmona SJ. Interpretation of T cell states from singlecell transcriptomics data using reference atlases. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1–19.
Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948;27(3):379–423.
Zappia L, Phipson B, Oshlack A. Splatter: simulation of singlecell RNA sequencing data. Genome Biol. 2017;18(1):1–15.
Treiner E, Duban L, Bahram S, Radosavljevic M, Wanner V, Tilloy F, et al. Selection of evolutionarily conserved mucosalassociated invariant T cells by MR1. Nature. 2003;422(6928):164–9.
3K PBMCs from a healthy donor, single cell immune profiling dataset by Cell Ranger 1.1.0, 10x Genomics. https://www.10xgenomics.com/resources/datasets/3kpbmcsfromahealthydonor1standard110. Accessed Apr 2022.
Xu G, Liu Y, Li H, Liu L, Zhang S, Zhang Z. Dissecting the human immune system with single cell RNA sequencing technology. J Leukoc Biol. 2020;107(4):613–23.
Joller N, Lozano E, Burkett PR, Patel B, Xiao S, Zhu C, et al. Treg cells expressing the coinhibitory molecule TIGIT selectively inhibit proinflammatory Th1 and Th17 cell responses. Immunity. 2014;40(4):569–81.
Kunicki MA, Hernandez LCA, Davis KL, Bacchetta R, Roncarolo MG. Identity and diversity of human peripheral Th and T regulatory cells defined by singlecell mass cytometry. J Immunol. 2018;200(1):336–46.
Traag VA, Waltman L, van Eck NJ. From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing wellconnected communities. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–12.
Vinh NX, Epps J, Bailey J. Information theoretic measures for clusterings comparison: variants, properties, normalization and correction for chance. J Mach Learn Res. 2010;11:2837–54.
Kumpula JM, Saramäki J, Kaski K, Kertész J. Limited resolution in complex network community detection with Potts model approach. Eur Phys J B. 2007;56(1):41–5.
Achlioptas D, McSherry F. Fast computation of lowrank matrix approximations. J ACM (JACM). 2007;54(2):9–es.
Candès EJ, Recht B. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization. Found Comput Math. 2009;9(6):717–72.
Huang M, Wang J, Torre E, Dueck H, Shaffer S, Bonasio R, et al. SAVER: gene expression recovery for singlecell RNA sequencing. Nat Methods. 2018;15(7):539–42.
Zhu J, Paul WE. Heterogeneity and plasticity of T helper cells. Cell Res. 2010;20(1):4–12.
Lin L, Couturier J, Yu X, Medina MA, Kozinetz CA, Lewis DE. Granzyme B secretion by human memory CD4 T cells is less strictly regulated compared to memory CD8 T cells. BMC Immunol. 2014;15(1):1–15.
Andrews TS, Hemberg M. False signals induced by singlecell imputation [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research. 2019;7:1740. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16613.2.
in Singlecell Analysis OP. Open problems  multimodal singlecell integration. 2022. https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/openproblemsmultimodal. Accessed Mar 2023.
Rousseeuw PJ. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math. 1987;20:53–65.
Tritschler S, Büttner M, Fischer DS, Lange M, Bergen V, Lickert H, Theis FJ. Concepts and limitations for learning developmental trajectories from single cell genomics. Development. 2019;146(12):dev170506.
Sparck Jones K. A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of documentation. 1972;28(1):11–21.
Levine RD. Molecular reaction dynamics. Cambridge University Press; 2009.
Gross A, Levine RD. Surprisal analysis of transcripts expression levels in the presence of noise: a reliable determination of the onset of a tumor phenotype. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61554.
Zadran S, Arumugam R, Herschman H, Phelps ME, Levine R. Surprisal analysis characterizes the free energy time course of cancer cells undergoing epithelialtomesenchymal transition. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(36):13235–40.
Remacle F, KravchenkoBalasha N, Levitzki A, Levine RD. Informationtheoretic analysis of phenotype changes in early stages of carcinogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107(22):10324–9.
KravchenkoBalasha N, Levitzki A, Goldstein A, Rotter V, Gross A, Remacle F, et al. On a fundamental structure of gene networks in living cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(12):4702–7.
Narayan A, Berger B, Cho H. Assessing singlecell transcriptomic variability through densitypreserving data visualization. Nat Biotechnol. 2021;39(6):765–74.
Schaum N, Karkanias J, Neff NF, May AP, Quake SR, WyssCoray T, et al. Singlecell transcriptomics of 20 mouse organs creates a Tabula Muris: the Tabula Muris Consortium. Nature. 2018;562(7727):367.
(https://math.stackexchange.com/users/22857/martin argerami) MA. What vector x will maximize the norm of \(\Vert Ax\Vert _2 / \Vert x\Vert _2\) (norm 2). Mathematics Stack Exchange. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3112310 (version: 20210126). Accessed Dec 2020.
Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods. 2020;17:261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159201906862.
Harris CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature. 2020;585(7825):357–62.
Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al. Scikitlearn: machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011;12:2825–30.
Oja E, Hyvarinen A. Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications. Neural Netw. 2000;13(4–5):411–30.
DeMeo B. shannonca v0.0.2. Github. 2023. https://github.com/bendemeo/shannonca. Accessed Apr 2023.
DeMeo B. shannonca v0.0.2. Zenodo. 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7854155.
HagemannJensen M, Ziegenhain C, Chen P, Ramsköld D, Hendriks GJ, Larsson AJ, et al. Singlecell RNA counting at allele and isoformresolution using Smartseq3. ArrayExpress; 2020. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/arrayexpress/studies/EMTAB8735. Accessed Nov 2020.
Hao Y, Hao S, AndersenNissen E, Mauck WM, Zheng S, Butler A, et al. Comprehensive integration of singlecell data. Gene Expression Omnibus; 2019. https://identifiers.org/geo:GSE128639. Accessed Jan 2021.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Ashwin Narayan, Brian Hie, Hyunghoon Cho, Sarah Nyquist, Rohit Singh, Ellen Zhong, and other members of the Berger lab for their continual support and helpful feedback. We also thank Josh Peters, Bryan Bryson, and ChengZhong Zhang for helpful conversations on SCA’s applications and valuable suggestions for biological applications.
Review history
The review history is available as Additional File 2.
Peer review information
Veronique van den Berghe was the primary editor of this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by the MIT Libraries. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health R01HG010959 and the National Institutes of Health 1R35GM141861.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
B. DeMeo developed SCA’s source code, ran the benchmarking experiments, and generated all figures. B. Berger guided methodological development, proposed benchmarks, and helped analyze results. Both authors wrote the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Additional file 1.
Contains proofs of key mathematical results, formal descriptions of the algorithms underlying SCA, and results of additional experiments testing SCA’s performance and robustness.
Additional file 2.
Contains the review history.
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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
DeMeo, B., Berger, B. SCA: recovering singlecell heterogeneity through informationbased dimensionality reduction. Genome Biol 24, 195 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059023029987
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059023029987