Sampling to capture single-cell heterogeneity

Advances in single-cell technologies have highlighted the prevalence and biological significance of cellular heterogeneity. A critical question researchers face is how to design experiments that faithfully capture the true range of heterogeneity from samples of cellular populations. Here we develop a data-driven approach, illustrated in the context of image data, that estimates the sampling depth required for prospective investigations of single-cell heterogeneity from an existing collection of samples.

[1]  P. Furmanski,et al.  A rapid and efficient method for testing immunohistochemical reactivity of monoclonal antibodies against multiple tissue samples simultaneously. , 1987, Journal of immunological methods.

[2]  D. Berry,et al.  Cancer and Leukemia Group B Pathology Committee guidelines for tissue microarray construction representing multicenter prospective clinical trial tissues. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  D. Borghys,et al.  A new approach to the validation of tissue microarrays , 2006, The Journal of pathology.

[4]  O. J. Trask,et al.  Assay Guidance Manual , 2004 .

[5]  P. Liberali,et al.  Population context determines cell-to-cell variability in endocytosis and virus infection , 2009, Nature.

[6]  Kevin W Eliceiri,et al.  NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis , 2012, Nature Methods.

[7]  Matthias Ochs,et al.  How much is there really? Why stereology is essential in lung morphometry. , 2007, Journal of applied physiology.

[8]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Image-based multivariate profiling of drug responses from single cells , 2007, Nature Methods.

[9]  J. H. Schuenemeyer,et al.  A Modified Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Sensitive to Tail Alternatives , 1983 .

[10]  J. Pawley,et al.  The 39 steps: a cautionary tale of quantitative 3-D fluorescence microscopy. , 2000, BioTechniques.

[11]  A. Haese*,et al.  The impact of the number of cores on tissue microarray studies investigating prostate cancer biomarkers. , 2011, International journal of oncology.

[12]  C. D. Savci-Heijink,et al.  Determining the Optimal Numbers of Cores Based on Tissue Microarray Antibody Assessment in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2011 .

[13]  D. Rimm,et al.  A decade of tissue microarrays: progress in the discovery and validation of cancer biomarkers. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  G. Sauter,et al.  Marked heterogeneity of ERG expression in large primary prostate cancers , 2013, Modern Pathology.

[15]  A. J. North,et al.  Seeing is believing? A beginners' guide to practical pitfalls in image acquisition , 2006, The Journal of cell biology.

[16]  Yinyin Yuan,et al.  Biopsy variability of lymphocytic infiltration in breast cancer subtypes and the ImmunoSkew score , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[17]  C. Lohse,et al.  Tissue microarrays: one size does not fit all , 2010, Diagnostic pathology.

[18]  Bruce A. Posner,et al.  Improving drug discovery with high-content phenotypic screens by systematic selection of reporter cell lines , 2015, Nature Biotechnology.

[19]  Kornelia Polyak,et al.  Cellular heterogeneity and molecular evolution in cancer. , 2013, Annual review of pathology.

[20]  M. Elowitz,et al.  Challenges and emerging directions in single-cell analysis , 2017, Genome Biology.

[21]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Cellular Heterogeneity: Do Differences Make a Difference? , 2010, Cell.

[22]  J. Colli,et al.  A simple method for estimating the optimum number of prostate biopsy cores needed to maintain high cancer detection rates while minimizing unnecessary biopsy sampling. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[23]  F. Massey.  The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit , 1951 .