Benchmarking atlas-level data integration in single-cell genomics

Single-cell atlases often include samples that span locations, laboratories and conditions, leading to complex, nested batch effects in data. Thus, joint analysis of atlas datasets requires reliable data integration. To guide integration method choice, we benchmarked 68 method and preprocessing combinations on 85 batches of gene expression, chromatin accessibility and simulation data from 23 publications, altogether representing >1.2 million cells distributed in 13 atlas-level integration tasks. We evaluated methods according to scalability, usability and their ability to remove batch effects while retaining biological variation using 14 evaluation metrics. We show that highly variable gene selection improves the performance of data integration methods, whereas scaling pushes methods to prioritize batch removal over conservation of biological variation. Overall, scANVI, Scanorama, scVI and scGen perform well, particularly on complex integration tasks, while single-cell ATAC-sequencing integration performance is strongly affected by choice of feature space. Our freely available Python module and benchmarking pipeline can identify optimal data integration methods for new data, benchmark new methods and improve method development.

Personalized reference intervals – statistical approaches and considerations

For many measurands, physicians depend on population-based reference intervals (popRI), when assessing laboratory test results. The availability of personalized reference intervals (prRI) may provide a means to improve the interpretation of laboratory test results for an individual. prRI can be calculated using estimates of biological and analytical variation and previous test results obtained in a steady-state situation. In this study, we aim to outline statistical approaches and considerations required when establishing and implementing prRI in clinical practice. Data quality assessment, including analysis for outliers and trends, is required prior to using previous test results to estimate the homeostatic set point. To calculate the prRI limits, two different statistical models based on ‘prediction intervals’ can be applied. The first model utilizes estimates of ‘within-person biological variation’ which are based on an individual’s own data. This model requires a minimum of five previous test results to generate the prRI. The second model is based on estimates of ‘within-subject biological variation’, which represents an average estimate for a population and can be found, for most measurands, in the EFLM Biological Variation Database. This model can be applied also when there are lower numbers of previous test results available. The prRI offers physicians the opportunity to improve interpretation of individuals’ test results, though studies are required to demonstrate if using prRI leads to better clinical outcomes. We recommend that both popRIs and prRIs are included in laboratory reports to aid in evaluating laboratory test results in the follow-up of patients.

Determining Plasma Protein Variation Parameters as a Prerequisite for Biomarker Studies—A TMT-Based LC-MSMS Proteome Investigation

Specific plasma proteins serve as valuable markers for various diseases and are in many cases routinely measured in clinical laboratories by fully automated systems. For safe diagnostics and monitoring using these markers, it is important to ensure an analytical quality in line with clinical needs. For this purpose, information on the analytical and the biological variation of the measured plasma protein, also in the context of the discovery and validation of novel, disease protein biomarkers, is important, particularly in relation to for sample size calculations in clinical studies. Nevertheless, information on the biological variation of the majority of medium-to-high abundant plasma proteins is largely absent. In this study, we hypothesized that it is possible to generate data on inter-individual biological variation in combination with analytical variation of several hundred abundant plasma proteins, by applying LC-MS/MS in combination with relative quantification using isobaric tagging (10-plex TMT-labeling) to plasma samples. Using this analytical proteomic approach, we analyzed 42 plasma samples prepared in doublets, and estimated the technical, inter-individual biological, and total variation of 265 of the most abundant proteins present in human plasma thereby creating the prerequisites for power analysis and sample size determination in future clinical proteomics studies. Our results demonstrated that only five samples per group may provide sufficient statistical power for most of the analyzed proteins if relative changes in abundances >1.5-fold are expected. Seventeen of the measured proteins are present in the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Biological Variation Database, and demonstrated remarkably similar biological CV’s to the corresponding CV’s listed in the EFLM database suggesting that the generated proteomic determined variation knowledge is useful for large-scale determination of plasma protein variations.

Long-term within- and between-subject biological variation of 29 routine laboratory measurands in athletes

Objectives Within- and between-subject biological variation (BV) estimates have many applications in laboratory medicine. However, robust high-quality BV estimates are lacking for many populations, such as athletes. This study aimed to deliver BV estimates of 29 routine laboratory measurands derived from a Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist compliant design in a population of high-endurance athletes. Methods Eleven samples per subject were drawn from 30 triathletes monthly, during a whole sport season. Serum samples were measured in duplicate for proteins, liver enzymes, lipids and kidney-related measurands on an Advia2400 (Siemens Healthineers). After outlier and homogeneity analysis, within-subject (CVI) and between-subject (CVG) biological variation estimates were delivered (CV-ANOVA and log-ANOVA, respectively) and a linear mixed model was applied to analyze the effect of exercise and health related variables. Results Most CVI estimates were similar or only slightly higher in athletes compared to those reported for the general population, whereas two- to three-fold increases were observed for amylase, ALT, AST and ALP. No effect of exercise and health related variables were observed on the CVI estimates. For seven measurands, data were not homogeneously distributed and BV estimates were therefore not reported. Conclusions The observation of higher CVI estimates in athletes than what has been reported for the general population may be related to physiological stress over time caused by the continuous practice of exercise. The BV estimates derived from this study could be applied to athlete populations from disciplines in which they exercise under similar conditions of intensity and duration.

Annual biological variation and personalized reference intervals of clinical chemistry and hematology analytes

Objectives A large number of people undergo annual health checkup but accurate laboratory criterion for evaluating their health status is limited. The present study determined annual biological variation (BV) and derived parameters of common laboratory analytes in order to accurately evaluate the test results of the annual healthcare population. Methods A total of 43 healthy individuals who had regular healthcare once a year for six consecutive years, were enrolled using physical, electrocardiogram, ultrasonography and laboratory. The annual BV data and derived parameters, such as reference change value (RCV) and index of individuality (II) were calculated and compared with weekly data. We used annual BV and homeostatic set point to calculate personalized reference intervals (RIper) which were compared with population-based reference intervals (RIpop). Results We have established the annual within-subject BV (CVI), RCV, II, RIper of 24 commonly used clinical chemistry and hematology analytes for healthy individuals. Among the 18 comparable measurands, CVI estimates of annual data for 11 measurands were significantly higher than the weekly data. Approximately 50% measurands of II were <0.6, the utility of their RIpop were limited. The distribution range of RIper for most measurands only copied small part of RIpop with reference range index for 8 measurands <0.5. Conclusions Compared with weekly BV, for annual healthcare individuals, annual BV and related parameters can provide more accurate evaluation of laboratory results. RIper based on long-term BV data is very valuable for “personalized” diagnosis on annual health assessments.