Jorge D Martin-Rufino1,2, Vijay G Sankaran1,2,3. 1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Boston Children's Hospital and Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 2. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. 3. Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Single-cell genomic approaches have uncovered cell fate biases and heterogeneity within hematopoietic subpopulations. However, standard single-cell transcriptomics suffers from high sampling noise, which particularly skews the distribution of lowly expressed genes, such as transcription factors (TFs). This might preclude the identification of rare transcripts that define cell identity and demarcate cell fate biases. Moreover, these studies need to go hand in hand with relevant functional assays to ensure that observed gene expression changes represent biologically meaningful alterations. RECENT FINDINGS: Single-cell lineage tracing and functional validation studies have uncovered cell fate bias within transcriptionally distinct hematopoietic stem and progenitor subpopulations. Novel markers identified using these strategies have been proposed to prospectively isolate functionally distinct subpopulations, including long-term hematopoietic stem cells for ex vivo applications. Furthermore, the continuous nature of hematopoiesis has prompted the study of the relationship between stochastic transcriptional noise in hematopoietic TFs and cell fate determination. SUMMARY: An understanding of the limitations of single-cell genomic approaches and follow-up functional assays is critical to discern the technical and biological contribution of noise in hematopoietic heterogeneity, to identify rare gene expression states, and to uncover functionally distinct subpopulations within hematopoiesis. SUPPLEMENTARY VIDEO: http://links.lww.com/COH/A23.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Single-cell genomic approaches have uncovered cell fate biases and heterogeneity within hematopoietic subpopulations. However, standard single-cell transcriptomics suffers from high sampling noise, which particularly skews the distribution of lowly expressed genes, such as transcription factors (TFs). This might preclude the identification of rare transcripts that define cell identity and demarcate cell fate biases. Moreover, these studies need to go hand in hand with relevant functional assays to ensure that observed gene expression changes represent biologically meaningful alterations. RECENT FINDINGS: Single-cell lineage tracing and functional validation studies have uncovered cell fate bias within transcriptionally distinct hematopoietic stem and progenitor subpopulations. Novel markers identified using these strategies have been proposed to prospectively isolate functionally distinct subpopulations, including long-term hematopoietic stem cells for ex vivo applications. Furthermore, the continuous nature of hematopoiesis has prompted the study of the relationship between stochastic transcriptional noise in hematopoietic TFs and cell fate determination. SUMMARY: An understanding of the limitations of single-cell genomic approaches and follow-up functional assays is critical to discern the technical and biological contribution of noise in hematopoietic heterogeneity, to identify rare gene expression states, and to uncover functionally distinct subpopulations within hematopoiesis. SUPPLEMENTARY VIDEO: http://links.lww.com/COH/A23.
Authors: Evan Z Macosko; Anindita Basu; Rahul Satija; James Nemesh; Karthik Shekhar; Melissa Goldman; Itay Tirosh; Allison R Bialas; Nolan Kamitaki; Emily M Martersteck; John J Trombetta; David A Weitz; Joshua R Sanes; Alex K Shalek; Aviv Regev; Steven A McCarroll Journal: Cell Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Paul Datlinger; André F Rendeiro; Thorina Boenke; Martin Senekowitsch; Thomas Krausgruber; Daniele Barreca; Christoph Bock Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Marlon Stoeckius; Christoph Hafemeister; William Stephenson; Brian Houck-Loomis; Pratip K Chattopadhyay; Harold Swerdlow; Rahul Satija; Peter Smibert Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Junyue Cao; Malte Spielmann; Xiaojie Qiu; Xingfan Huang; Daniel M Ibrahim; Andrew J Hill; Fan Zhang; Stefan Mundlos; Lena Christiansen; Frank J Steemers; Cole Trapnell; Jay Shendure Journal: Nature Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Alejo E Rodriguez-Fraticelli; Caleb Weinreb; Shou-Wen Wang; Rosa P Migueles; Maja Jankovic; Marc Usart; Allon M Klein; Sally Lowell; Fernando D Camargo Journal: Nature Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Harrison Specht; Edward Emmott; Aleksandra A Petelski; R Gray Huffman; David H Perlman; Marco Serra; Peter Kharchenko; Antonius Koller; Nikolai Slavov Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Michael Hagemann-Jensen; Leonard Hartmanis; Anton J M Larsson; Per Johnsson; Omid R Faridani; Björn Reinius; Åsa Segerstolpe; Chloe M Rivera; Bing Ren; Rickard Sandberg Journal: Nature Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Xiaojie Qiu; Yan Zhang; Jorge D Martin-Rufino; Chen Weng; Shayan Hosseinzadeh; Dian Yang; Angela N Pogson; Marco Y Hein; Kyung Hoi Joseph Min; Li Wang; Emanuelle I Grody; Matthew J Shurtleff; Ruoshi Yuan; Song Xu; Yian Ma; Joseph M Replogle; Eric S Lander; Spyros Darmanis; Ivet Bahar; Vijay G Sankaran; Jianhua Xing; Jonathan S Weissman Journal: Cell Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 66.850