Navigating the Void: A Comprehensive Guide to Handling Missing Values in Transcriptomics Data

Abstract

Missing data is an inevitable challenge in transcriptomics, affecting downstream analyses from biomarker discovery to clinical prediction. This article provides researchers and drug development professionals with a modern, practical framework for addressing data incompleteness across bulk and single-cell RNA-seq. We explore the foundational causes and impacts of missing values, evaluate a spectrum of methods from traditional imputation to novel AI-driven and imputation-free integration techniques, and offer strategic guidance for method selection and validation. By synthesizing the latest advancements, this guide empowers scientists to make informed decisions that enhance the reliability and biological relevance of their transcriptomic studies.

Understanding the Nature and Impact of Missing Data in Transcriptomics

Missing values represent a fundamental challenge in transcriptomics research, with the potential to skew biological interpretation and derail downstream analyses. The pervasive nature of missing data stems from an intricate interplay of technical limitations and biological reality. In single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, the proportion of zeros can be as high as 90%, markedly exceeding the 10-40% typically observed in bulk RNA-seq [1]. This application note delineates the technical and biological origins of missing values within the broader thesis of handling missing data in transcriptomics research, providing researchers with structured experimental frameworks and analytical solutions to distinguish meaningful biological signals from technical artifacts.

Defining the Nature of Zeros in Transcriptomic Data

Precise terminology is crucial for differentiating between types of zeros, as this determination directly influences subsequent analytical strategies.

Table: Classification of Zero Values in Transcriptomics

Category	Subtype	Definition	Underlying Cause
Biological Zeros	True Absence	True absence of a gene’s transcripts in a cell.	Gene is not expressed in that cell type or state [1].
	Transcriptional Bursting	Zero expression due to stochastic on/off switching of genes.	Intermittent transcription during mRNA synthesis [1].
Non-Biological Zeros	Technical Zeros	Loss of information from library preparation steps prior to cDNA amplification.	Low mRNA capture efficiency during reverse transcription [1].
	Sampling Zeros	Undetected expression due to limited sequencing depth or inefficient amplification.	Stochastic sampling of cDNAs during sequencing [1].

The distinction between these types is not merely academic; it has profound practical implications. True biological missingness (TBM) can occur when a gene is highly expressed in some individuals due to genetic or environmental factors but not expressed in others, creating a pattern of missingness that reflects real biological variation rather than technical failure [2].

Technical Causes of Missing Data

Technical artifacts introduced during experimental workflows constitute a major source of missing values.

Key Technical Limitations

• Low mRNA Capture Efficiency: The process of reverse transcribing mRNA into cDNA is inherently inefficient, with rates as low as 20% in some protocols. This inefficiency means that a significant proportion of mRNA molecules are never converted to cDNA and are consequently lost from the sequencing library [1].
• Limited Sequencing Depth: Constrained by budget and instrumentation, the finite number of sequencing reads leads to "sampling zeros," where low-abundance transcripts are randomly missed during sequencing [1].
• Amplification Biases: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification, while necessary, introduces non-linear distortions. Sequence-specific amplification efficiency—particularly for GC-rich sequences—can result in under-representation or complete dropout of certain transcripts [1].
• Batch Effects: Technical variability arises when cells from different biological conditions are processed, captured, or sequenced separately. This confounding can introduce systematic patterns of missingness that correlate with technical batches rather than biological groups [3].

Diagram 1: Technical workflows contributing to missing data. Key procedural stages where technical artifacts introduce missing values into transcriptomic data.

Protocol for Assessing Technical Variability

Objective: To quantify and distinguish technical zeros from biological zeros using spike-in controls and experimental replicates.

Materials:

• External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) spike-in RNAs
• scRNA-seq platform (e.g., 10x Genomics, Smart-seq2)
• Single-cell analysis software (e.g., Seurat, Scanpy)

Procedure:

• Spike-in Control Addition: Add a known quantity of ERCC spike-in RNAs to the cell lysis buffer prior to library preparation.
• Experimental Replication: Process technical replicates across separate library preparations and sequencing runs.
• Data Processing:
  • Align sequencing reads to a combined reference genome including spike-in sequences.
  • Quantify gene expression in transcripts per million (TPM) or counts per million (CPM).
• Technical Noise Estimation:
  • Calculate the coefficient of variation for spike-in RNAs across cells.
  • Correlate the number of zeros per cell with sequencing depth and quality metrics.
  • Perform differential expression analysis between technical batches to identify batch-specific missingness.

Expected Outcomes: Cells with high technical variability will show inconsistent spike-in detection and a strong correlation between sequencing depth and zero counts, indicating a predominance of technical zeros [3].

Biological Causes of Missing Data

Biological mechanisms generate meaningful patterns of missingness that reflect genuine cellular states and must be preserved in analysis.

Mechanisms of Biological Zeros

• Cell-Type-Specific Expression: Fundamental biological zeros occur when genes are unexpressed in particular cell types due to differential regulatory programs [1].
• Stochastic Transcriptional Bursting: The two-state model of gene expression—where genes switch between active and inactive states—creates a natural distribution of mRNA copy numbers across cells, with a mode at zero for many genes [1].
• True Biological Missingness (TBM): Genes may show expression in some individuals but complete absence in others due to genetic polymorphisms, environmental exposures, or disease states. For example, tobacco smoke exposure can induce expression of certain genes in some individuals, creating a TBM pattern when analyzing mixed populations [2].
• Dynamic Biological Processes: During development or cellular differentiation, genes may be transiently expressed, resulting in zeros before activation or after silencing.

Diagram 2: Biological mechanisms creating meaningful zeros. Inter-individual variation and cellular dynamics generate true biological missingness that should be preserved in analysis.

Protocol for Identifying True Biological Missingness

Objective: To distinguish true biological missingness from technical dropouts using population-level patterns.

Materials:

• RNA-seq dataset with ≥50 samples from different individuals
• Clinical or phenotypic metadata
• Computational environment (R/Python)

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Filter genes expressed in <5% of samples in at least one phenotypic group.
  • Normalize data using quantile normalization or TPM.
• Missingness-Expression Relationship Analysis:
  • Stratify genes by expression level and calculate the mean missing rate for each stratum.
  • Plot missing rate against mean expression (expected: inverse relationship).
• Identification of TBM Genes:
  • Identify genes with high missingness (>50%) but high mean expression when detected.
  • Cross-reference with known biologically variable gene sets (e.g., exposure-responsive genes).
• Validation:
  • Test for association between missingness patterns and clinical variables (e.g., smoking status).
  • Perform gene set enrichment analysis on high-TBM candidate genes.

Expected Outcomes: True biological missingness manifests as a subset of genes with high expression when present but completely absent in a subset of samples, with these patterns correlating with biological covariates such as exposure status [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Reagents and Tools for Investigating Missing Values

Research Reagent/Tool	Function/Purpose	Application Context
ERCC Spike-in Controls	External RNA controls for technical noise quantification	Distinguishing technical vs. biological zeros by adding known transcripts [3]
UMIs (Unique Molecular Identifiers)	Molecular barcodes to correct for amplification bias	Accurate mRNA molecule counting in scRNA-seq protocols [3]
scGNGI Algorithm	Low-rank matrix completion for missing value imputation	Recovering missing gene expression while preserving cell heterogeneity [4]
cnnImpute Tool	Convolutional neural network-based imputation	Learning co-expression patterns from neighboring genes to predict missing values [5]
rMisbeta R Package	Robust missing value imputation using beta divergence	Handling missing values and outliers simultaneously in transcriptomics [6]
RNAseqCovarImpute	Multiple imputation incorporating transcriptome PCA	Addressing missing covariate data in differential expression analysis [7]
Feature Selection Methods	Identifying highly variable genes for analysis	Improving data integration and reducing noise by focusing on informative features [8]
LY300503	LY300503, CAS:146117-78-4, MF:C14H16ClNO, MW:249.73 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
PD 114595	PD 114595, CAS:94636-28-9, MF:C23H31N5O2S, MW:441.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Integrated Experimental Framework for Cause Determination

A decision framework that combines experimental and computational approaches provides the most robust strategy for addressing missing values.

Diagram 3: Integrated decision framework for addressing missing values. A structured workflow for diagnosing the origins of missing data and implementing appropriate analytical strategies.

Comprehensive Diagnostic Protocol

Objective: To implement a multi-faceted approach for determining the predominant causes of missingness in a transcriptomics dataset.

Procedure:

• Technical Quality Control:
  • Calculate standard QC metrics: sequencing depth, mapping rates, and ribosomal RNA percentage.
  • Examine the relationship between per-cell zero rates and QC metrics.
• Batch Effect Analysis:
  • Perform PCA including batch covariates.
  • Test for association between zero patterns and processing batches.
• Biological Pattern Validation:
  • Cluster cells by expression profiles and examine zero distribution across clusters.
  • Validate cell-type-specific zeros using marker genes from public databases.
• Statistical Modeling:
  • Apply zero-inflated models to estimate technical dropout probabilities.
  • Use mixture models to distinguish low expression from technical zeros.

Interpretation Guidelines: Technical zeros predominate when missingness correlates strongly with technical covariates and shows no cell-type specificity. Biological zeros are indicated when missingness patterns align with known biological groups and are reproducible across technical replicates [1].

The pervasive nature of missing values in transcriptomics data demands a nuanced approach that recognizes both technical and biological origins. indiscriminate imputation of all zeros risks obscuring genuine biological signals, particularly the phenomenon of true biological missingness that reflects meaningful inter-individual variation. The experimental frameworks and protocols outlined herein provide researchers with a structured methodology to diagnose the sources of missingness in their data, implement appropriate analytical strategies, and ultimately derive more biologically accurate interpretations from transcriptomic studies. As the field advances toward multi-omics integration and increasingly complex study designs, principled handling of missing data will remain essential for translating transcriptomic measurements into meaningful biological and clinical insights.

In transcriptomics research, high-throughput technologies such as RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) and single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) routinely generate datasets containing missing values. The presence of missing data presents a significant challenge for downstream analyses, including differential expression testing, clustering, and biomarker discovery. The impact of missing values extends beyond simple data loss; improper handling can introduce substantial bias, reduce statistical power, and lead to erroneous biological conclusions [6] [3]. The foundation of effective missing data management lies in accurately classifying the underlying mechanism responsible for the missingness.

The three primary mechanisms—Missing Completely at Random (MCAR), Missing at Random (MAR), and Missing Not at Random (MNAR)—provide a formal framework for understanding why data are missing. This classification is not merely an academic exercise; it directly determines the most appropriate statistical methods for data imputation and analysis. Research demonstrates that method selection specific to the missingness mechanism is crucial for obtaining reliable, reproducible results in transcriptomic studies [9] [10] [7].

Theoretical Framework of Missingness Mechanisms

Definitions and Core Concepts

The following table outlines the defining characteristics, implications, and transcriptomics-specific examples for each missingness mechanism.

Table 1: Classification and Characteristics of Missing Data Mechanisms

Mechanism	Full Name & Definition	Key Characteristic	Common Examples in Transcriptomics
MCAR	Missing Completely at Random: The probability of missingness is unrelated to both observed and unobserved data [11].	The missingness is entirely random and unpredictable.	A laboratory technician accidentally skips a well on a plate during sample processing; random technical failures during sequencing [9] [11].
MAR	Missing At Random: The probability of missingness may depend on observed data but not on unobserved data [12] [11].	The reason for a value being missing can be explained by other complete variables in the dataset.	Lower expression values for a particular gene are more likely to be missing in specific sample batches, but this tendency is fully explained by the recorded batch information [9] [12].
MNAR	Missing Not at Random: The probability of missingness depends on the unobserved value itself [12] [11].	The missingness is directly related to the value that would have been observed.	A transcript's expression level falls below the technical detection limit of the instrument (e.g., in mass spectrometry-based metabolomics or low-input RNA-seq); this is also known as "dropout" events in scRNA-seq [9] [3] [10].

The Critical Role of Mechanism Classification in Downstream Analysis

Selecting an analysis method without regard for the missing data mechanism risks introducing severe bias. Using an imputation method designed for MAR/MCAR data on MNAR values (or vice versa) can produce imputed values that do not represent the underlying biology, leading to false positives or negatives in subsequent analyses like differential expression [9] [10]. For instance, naïve imputation of MNAR values (e.g., dropouts in scRNA-seq) can obscure true cell-to-cell heterogeneity, while improperly omitting MAR data can reduce statistical power and introduce selection bias [3]. Therefore, mechanism classification is a critical first step in the data preprocessing pipeline.

Practical Workflow for Classifying Missingness

The following diagram illustrates a structured, decision-based workflow for classifying the missingness mechanism of a particular variable in a transcriptomics dataset.

Experimental Protocol for Mechanism-Aware Imputation

This protocol details a two-step, mechanism-aware imputation (MAI) procedure, which first classifies the missingness mechanism and then applies a targeted imputation algorithm.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for Mechanism-Aware Analysis

Tool/Resource	Function	Application in Protocol
R/Python Environment	Statistical computing and machine learning.	Primary platform for executing the classification and imputation code.
Random Forest Classifier	A machine learning algorithm for classification tasks.	Used to predict whether each missing value is MAR/MCAR or MNAR.
Complete Data Subset	A portion of the dataset with no missing values.	Serves as training data to model realistic missingness patterns for the classifier.
Mixed-Missingness (MM) Algorithm	A model for imposing missing data with controlled parameters (α, β, γ) [9] [10].	Used to generate training data with realistic MAR/MCAR and MNAR patterns on the complete subset.
MAR/MCAR-specific Imputation Algorithm	e.g., K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Random Forest imputation, or Bayesian PCA.	Applied to values classified as MAR/MCAR.
MNAR-specific Imputation Algorithm	e.g., Quantile Regression Imputation of Left-Censored Data (QRILC) or no-skip KNN (nsKNN).	Applied to values classified as MNAR.

Step-by-Step Procedure

Step 1: Prepare a Complete Data Subset

• Extract a complete data subset ( X^{Complete} ) from the original data matrix ( X ) using a custom algorithm that retains all metabolites/genes and a maximal number of observations [9] [10]. This involves shuffling data within rows, moving missing values to the right, and finding the largest contiguous complete block.

Step 2: Train the Mechanism Classification Model

• Use the Mixed-Missingness (MM) algorithm with grid search to estimate parameters (α, β, γ) that best replicate the missingness pattern of your original full dataset ( X ) within the complete subset ( X^{Complete} ) [9] [10].
• Impose missing values onto ( X^{Complete} ) using the estimated parameters. You now have a training set where the true missing mechanism for every missing value is known.
• Train a Random Forest classifier on this generated data. The features are observed data patterns, and the label is the missingness mechanism (MAR/MCAR vs. MNAR).

Step 3: Classify and Impute in Full Dataset

• Apply the trained Random Forest classifier to the original, incomplete dataset ( X ) to predict the missing mechanism for every missing value.
• Split the missing values into two groups based on the classifier's prediction: MAR/MCAR and MNAR.
• Apply a MAR/MCAR-optimized imputation algorithm (e.g., Random Forest imputation) to the first group.
• Apply a MNAR-optimized imputation algorithm (e.g., QRILC) to the second group.
• The result is a fully imputed dataset ready for downstream biological analysis.

Advanced Considerations and Novel Methodologies

Special Case: Single-Cell RNA-Seq Data

Single-cell transcriptomics introduces unique challenges, primarily a high proportion of zeros termed "dropouts." These are predominantly MNAR, as a gene's failure to be detected is often directly related to its low true expression level in that specific cell [3]. This high-rate MNAR missingness can be confused with biological zeros (a gene not expressed at all in a cell type), and its cell-to-cell technical variability can be mistaken for genuine biological heterogeneity if not properly accounted for [3].

Handling Missing Covariates in Integrative Analysis

Beyond missing expression values, observational transcriptomic studies often face missing covariate data (e.g., clinical variables). A multiple imputation (MI) procedure that incorporates information from the high-dimensional transcriptome itself has been shown to outperform complete-case analysis and single imputation.

• RNAseqCovarImpute Method: This approach uses Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to reduce the dimensionality of the transcriptome and includes the top principal components in the MI prediction model for the missing covariates. This method limits false discovery rates and minimizes bias in differential expression analysis [7]. The workflow is integrated into the popular limma-voom pipeline for ease of use.

Accurately classifying missing data into MCAR, MAR, and MNAR mechanisms is a foundational step in robust transcriptomics research. The two-step protocol of mechanism-aware imputation—classifying first, then imputing with mechanism-specific algorithms—provides a powerful framework to reduce bias and enhance the reliability of biological conclusions. As transcriptomic datasets grow in size and complexity, particularly with the rise of single-cell and multi-omics technologies, the principled handling of missing data through these advanced, mechanism-aware methods will be indispensable for generating accurate and reproducible scientific insights.

In transcriptomics research, missing values are not merely a nuisance but a significant source of bias that propagates through the entire analytical pipeline, ultimately compromising biological interpretations. This domino effect occurs when incomplete datasets lead to erroneous conclusions in downstream analyses such as differential expression testing, clustering, and biomarker discovery [6] [12]. The problem is particularly acute in transcriptomics, where typically 1–10% of data may be missing, affecting up to 90% of genes in severe cases [6]. Understanding the mechanisms behind missingness and implementing robust handling protocols is therefore not optional but fundamental to research integrity.

Missing data in transcriptomics arise from diverse sources, including technical artifacts from sample processing, instrumentation limitations, and true biological absence [3] [2]. The critical challenge lies in distinguishing between technical missingness (e.g., due to low expression falling below detection limits) and true biological missingness (TBM), where genes are genuinely not expressed in certain samples or conditions [2]. Incorrectly handling these different types of missing data can introduce substantial bias; for instance, imputing TBM values artificially creates expression signals where none biologically exist, potentially leading to false discoveries [2].

Table 1: Characteristics and Mechanisms of Missing Data in Transcriptomics

Category	Mechanism	Example Causes	Recommended Handling
Missing Completely at Random (MCAR)	Missingness independent of observed and unobserved data	Pipetting error, random technical failures	Most imputation methods perform well
Missing at Random (MAR)	Missingness depends on observed data but not unmeasured values	Lower sequencing depth in specific batches	Methods utilizing correlation structure
Missing Not at Random (MNAR)	Missingness depends on the unobserved value itself	Limit of detection, biological absence	Specialized methods; potential exclusion of TBM genes
True Biological Missingness (TBM)	Genuine biological absence of expression	Exposure-inducible genes in unexposed samples [2]	Separate analysis; exclusion from imputation

The distribution and impact of missing values varies considerably across transcriptomics technologies. In single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq), the proportion of zeros varies substantially across cells, with this cell-to-cell variation potentially driven by technical rather than biological factors [3]. In spatial transcriptomics, library size effects are often region-specific, making normalization and missing value handling particularly challenging [13].

Impact on Downstream Analyses

Table 2: Impact of Missing Data on Transcriptomics Analyses

Analytical Step	Impact of Missing Data	Consequence
Differential Expression	Reduced statistical power; biased effect size estimates	Increased false negatives/positives [6]
Clustering	Distancedistortion between samples/cells	False subgroup identification [3]
Biomarker Discovery	Imputation artifacts mistaken for true signals	Identification of unreliable biomarkers [6] [2]
Pathway Analysis	Incomplete representation of pathway activity	Biased biological interpretations
Multi-omics Integration	Incomplete overlap between omics layers	Failure to identify cross-omics relationships [12]

Evidence from lung adenocarcinoma studies demonstrates that indiscriminate imputation of missing values can be particularly problematic. Research has identified genes with high missing rates that show strong expression in subsets of samples but complete absence in others—characteristic of true biological missingness [2]. When such TBM genes are subjected to standard imputation, expression values are artificially assigned to samples where the gene is not biologically expressed, creating analytical bias [2].

Experimental Protocols for Missing Data Assessment and Imputation

Protocol 1: Data Quality Assessment and Missingness Pattern Evaluation

Objective: To characterize the extent, patterns, and potential mechanisms of missing data in transcriptomics datasets prior to imputation.

Materials:

• Raw transcript count matrix (genes × samples)
• Sample metadata including experimental conditions and batch information
• R or Python computational environment

Procedure:

• Calculate Missingness Statistics: For each gene and each sample, compute the percentage of missing values. Generate distributions of missingness rates across genes and across samples.
• Visualize Missingness Patterns: Create heatmaps showing missing value patterns, clustered by samples and genes to identify potential batch effects or sample-specific issues.
• Assess Association with Expression Levels: Categorize genes by expression level and plot the relationship between mean expression and missingness rate. As illustrated in Figure 1, genes with borderline low expression typically show a negative association between expression level and missingness, while genes with very high missingness may show a different pattern potentially indicative of TBM [2].
• Evaluate Correlation with Covariates: Test for associations between sample missingness rates and technical covariates (e.g., sequencing depth, RNA quality metrics) or biological factors.
• Identify True Biological Missingness Candidates: Flag genes with bimodal expression patterns (high expression in some samples, complete absence in others) for separate analysis, as these may represent TBM [2].

Figure 1: Workflow for assessing missing data patterns in transcriptomics, including identification of True Biological Missingness (TBM) candidates that may require separate handling.

Protocol 2: Robust Imputation Using rMisbeta Algorithm

Objective: To accurately impute missing values while simultaneously handling outliers that could bias the imputation process.

Materials:

• R statistical environment (version 4.0 or higher)
• rMisbeta package (available from CRAN)
• Pre-processed transcriptomics data matrix with missing values

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Format data as a matrix with genes as rows and samples as columns. Ensure appropriate normalization has been applied prior to imputation.
• Parameter Initialization: Set the β parameter for the minimum beta divergence method. The default value (β = 0.5) generally works well, but this can be optimized based on data characteristics.
• Iterative Imputation: Execute the rMisbeta algorithm, which operates as follows [6]:
  • Compute initial robust estimators of location and scale using the minimum β-divergence method
  • Calculate β-weights to downweight potential outliers
  • Impute missing values using the robust estimators
  • Iterate until convergence of imputed values
• Output Evaluation: Examine the imputed dataset for reasonable value distributions and the absence of artificial patterns introduced during imputation.
• Downstream Validation: Compare key downstream results (e.g., number of differentially expressed genes) with those obtained from unimputed or alternatively imputed datasets to assess impact.

Figure 2: The rMisbeta iterative imputation workflow that simultaneously handles missing values and outliers through robust beta divergence estimation [6].

Protocol 3: Evaluation of Imputation Performance

Objective: To quantitatively assess the performance of imputation methods and select the most appropriate approach for a specific dataset.

Materials:

• Complete dataset (or subset) where missing values can be introduced artificially
• Multiple imputation methods for comparison
• Performance metrics calculation scripts

Procedure:

• Artificial Introduction of Missing Values: For a complete dataset subset, randomly remove values at different rates (e.g., 5%, 10%, 15%) under MCAR, MAR, or MNAR mechanisms.
• Apply Multiple Imputation Methods: Impute the artificially missing values using different algorithms (e.g., rMisbeta, KNN, SVD, random forest).
• Calculate Performance Metrics: Compare imputed values to true values using multiple indices [6]:
  • Frobenius Norm (FOBN): Measures overall matrix reconstruction error
  • Accuracy (ACC), Sensitivity (SN), Specificity (SP): Classification metrics for binary outcomes
  • Area Under ROC Curve (AUC): Overall imputation accuracy
  • Computational Runtime: Practical implementation consideration
• Evaluate Downstream Analysis Impact: Compare differential expression results between original complete data and imputed data in terms of gene overlap and statistical significance.
• Method Selection: Choose the imputation method that provides the best balance of accuracy and computational efficiency for the specific dataset.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Missing Data Handling in Transcriptomics

Resource Type	Specific Tool/Platform	Function in Missing Data Handling
R Packages	rMisbeta [6]	Robust missing value imputation with simultaneous outlier handling
R Packages	scran [13]	Normalization and imputation for single-cell data
R Packages	SpaNorm [13]	Spatially-aware normalization for spatial transcriptomics
Python Libraries	scikit-learn [2]	Implementation of various imputation algorithms
Web Servers	Michigan Imputation Server [14]	Web-based genotype imputation using reference panels
Quality Control Tools	FastQC, MultiQC	Identify technical biases contributing to missing data
Experimental Aids	UMIs (Unique Molecular Identifiers) [3]	More accurate molecular counting to reduce technical missingness
Reference Materials	ERCC RNA Spike-In Mixes	Technical controls to distinguish biological vs. technical zeros
PD 136450	PD 136450, CAS:139067-52-0, MF:C35H40N4O6, MW:612.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Penicillin G procaine hydrate	Penicillin G procaine hydrate, CAS:6130-64-9, MF:C29H40N4O7S, MW:588.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The domino effect of missing data in transcriptomics underscores the critical importance of appropriate handling techniques throughout the analytical workflow. By implementing the protocols outlined in this application note—including rigorous assessment of missingness patterns, application of robust imputation methods like rMisbeta, and thorough evaluation of imputation performance—researchers can significantly mitigate the biases introduced by incomplete datasets. Particular attention should be paid to distinguishing between technical missingness and true biological missingness, as the inappropriate imputation of TBM genes can generate artifactual findings. Through systematic application of these principles and protocols, the transcriptomics research community can enhance the reliability and reproducibility of their downstream analyses and biological conclusions.

In transcriptomics research, the accurate measurement of gene expression is fundamental to understanding cellular function, disease mechanisms, and therapeutic responses. However, all RNA sequencing technologies must contend with some form of missing data, which manifests in fundamentally different ways between bulk and single-cell approaches. Bulk RNA-seq provides a population-averaged expression profile but obscures cellular heterogeneity, while single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) reveals cellular heterogeneity but introduces unique technical artifacts, most notably the "dropout" phenomenon [15]. Understanding this distinction is critical for selecting appropriate analytical methods and correctly interpreting transcriptomic data.

Dropout events in scRNA-seq occur when a transcript is expressed in a cell but fails to be detected during sequencing, resulting in a false zero count. This phenomenon stems from the limited starting mRNA in individual cells and technical limitations in reverse transcription, amplification, and sequencing efficiency [16] [17]. In contrast, bulk RNA-seq missingness typically refers to genes with low counts or complete absence across all samples in a population, often due to biological absence, low expression beyond detection limits, or technical artifacts that affect entire libraries [18]. This fundamental difference in the nature and origin of missing data necessitates distinct computational strategies for handling each scenario.

Technical Comparison: Contrasting Missing Data Characteristics

Table 1: Characteristics of Missing Data in Bulk vs. Single-Cell RNA-seq

Feature	Bulk RNA-seq Missingness	Single-Cell RNA-seq Dropouts
Primary Cause	Biological absence, low expression beyond detection, technical artifacts affecting entire libraries	Stochastic sampling, low mRNA input, inefficient reverse transcription/amplification
Manifestation	Genes missing across entire samples or conditions	Zero inflation; genes detected in some cells but not others of same type
Typical Impact	Reduced power for differential expression, incomplete transcriptional profiles	Obscured cellular heterogeneity, impaired cell type identification, distorted trajectory inference
Data Structure	Sparse genes across samples	Sparse matrix with excessive zeros (often >90-97%) [16] [17]
Appropriate Solutions	Imputation using population statistics, removal of rarely detected genes	Specialized imputation (RESCUE, scImpute), binary pattern analysis, denoising autoencoders

The impact of dropouts extends beyond mere data sparsity. As Clemmensen et al. demonstrated, high dropout rates can break the fundamental assumption that "similar cells are close to each other in space," thereby compromising the reliability of clustering pipelines commonly used in scRNA-seq analysis [19]. This effect is particularly pronounced when attempting to identify rare cell populations or subtle transcriptional differences between cell states.

Experimental Protocols for Handling Missing Data

Protocol 1: Bulk RNA-seq Missing Data Handling

Principle: Address systematic missingness in bulk data through careful filtering and population-based imputation.

Procedure:

• Quality Control and Filtering: Remove genes with zero counts across more than 80% of samples. This eliminates biologically irrelevant or technically problematic genes while retaining meaningful signals.
• Missing Data Assessment: Classify missingness patterns as Missing Completely at Random (MCAR), Missing at Random (MAR), or Missing Not at Random (MNAR) using statistical tests.
• Imputation Selection:
  • For MCAR/MAR scenarios: Apply k-nearest neighbors (KNN) imputation using similar samples.
  • For MNAR scenarios: Use left-censored methods like MinDet or Bayesian approaches.
• Validation: Compare principal component analysis (PCA) plots and correlation structures before and after imputation to ensure biological signals are preserved.

Technical Notes: When dealing with bulk data for deconvolution, special consideration is needed for cell types that might be missing from single-cell references, as this significantly impacts deconvolution accuracy [18].

Protocol 2: Single-Cell RNA-seq Dropout Handling

Principle: Address zero-inflation in scRNA-seq data through specialized imputation or utilization of dropout patterns as biological signals.

Procedure:

• Quality Control: Filter cells with abnormally high mitochondrial percentages or low gene counts. Remove genes expressed in few cells.
• Dropout Assessment: Calculate dropout rates per cell and per gene. Visualize the relationship between gene expression mean and dropout rate.
• Method Selection:
  • For clustering applications: Consider using the binary dropout pattern directly as a signal via co-occurrence clustering [16].
  • For trajectory inference: Apply targeted imputation methods like SmartImpute that preserve biological zeros [20].
  • For high dropout rates: Use robust methods like scTsI that perform well under high sparsity conditions [21].
• Implementation:
  • RESCUE Method: Utilize bootstrap sampling of highly variable genes with ensemble clustering to impute via within-cluster averaging [17].
  • DropDAE Method: Apply denoising autoencoder with contrastive learning to simultaneously impute and enhance cluster separation [22].
  • SmartImpute: Employ targeted imputation focused on predefined marker genes using modified Generative Adversarial Imputation Network (GAIN) architecture [20].
• Validation: Assess cluster stability, biological consistency of marker genes, and preservation of rare cell populations.

Technical Notes: When applying scTsI, the two-stage approach first uses K-nearest neighbors for initial imputation, then constrains adjustment using bulk RNA-seq data through ridge regression, preserving high expression values while recovering missing ones [21].

Visualization of Methodologies

Single-Cell Dropout Imputation Workflow

Bulk vs. Single-Cell Missing Data Origins

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Addressing Missing Data

Tool/Reagent	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
BD Rhapsody Immune Response Panel	Wet-bench reagent	Targeted mRNA profiling panel	Provides predefined marker genes for focused scRNA-seq studies [20]
10X Genomics Chromium	Wet-bench platform	Single-cell partitioning and barcoding	Generates high-throughput scRNA-seq data with characteristic dropout patterns [16]
Seurat	Computational tool	scRNA-seq analysis pipeline	Implements standard clustering workflows affected by dropouts [19]
SmartImpute	Computational tool	Targeted scRNA-seq imputation	Uses modified GAIN architecture for marker-focused imputation [20]
RESCUE	Computational tool	Bootstrap-based imputation	Ensemble method for dropout correction using multiple gene subsets [17]
DropDAE	Computational tool	Denoising autoencoder	Deep learning approach with contrastive learning for dropout handling [22]
scTsI	Computational tool	Two-stage imputation	Combines KNN with bulk data constraints via ridge regression [21]
Splatter	Computational tool	scRNA-seq simulation	Models dropout events for method validation and benchmarking [22]
Rispenzepine	Rispenzepine, CAS:96449-05-7, MF:C19H20N4O2, MW:336.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
RN-18	RN-18, CAS:431980-38-0, MF:C20H16N2O4S, MW:380.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Advanced Applications and Integration Strategies

The field is rapidly evolving beyond simple imputation toward sophisticated integrative approaches. Multi-omics integration presents particular challenges for handling missing data, as noted by Athieniti and Spyrou: "The lack of pre-processing standards" and "heterogeneities across omics data types challenge harmonization" [23]. Methods like MOFA (Multi-Omics Factor Analysis) infer latent factors that capture shared variation across data types, effectively addressing missingness patterns that differ between omics layers [23].

For complex analyses such as deconvolution of bulk RNA-seq using single-cell references, special consideration must be given to cell types that might be missing from the reference. As Ivich et al. demonstrated, "missing cell types in single-cell references impact deconvolution of bulk data," potentially leading to misinterpretation of cellular composition [18]. Their approach using non-negative matrix factorization to recover missing cell type profiles from residuals represents an advanced strategy for handling this form of missing information.

Selecting appropriate methods for handling missing data requires careful consideration of research objectives, data characteristics, and analytical goals. The following strategic framework is recommended:

• For bulk RNA-seq analyses: Prioritize methods that distinguish between biological zeros and technical missingness, with particular attention to reference completeness when performing deconvolution.

• For scRNA-seq clustering: Consider whether imputation or binary pattern utilization better serves your research goals, as dropout patterns can be as informative as quantitative expression for identifying cell types [16].

• For trajectory inference: Apply imputation methods that preserve continuous biological processes while recovering missing intermediate states.

• For multi-omics integration: Employ factor-based integration methods that can handle different missingness patterns across data types.

The optimal approach depends on the specific biological question, data quality, and analytical goals. By understanding the fundamental differences between bulk missingness and single-cell dropouts, researchers can select appropriate strategies that maximize biological insight while minimizing technical artifacts.

A Modern Toolkit: From Traditional Imputation to Advanced Integration

In transcriptomics research, data completeness is paramount for robust downstream analysis. Missing values can arise from various technical artifacts, including low expression levels, sample processing errors, or instrumental detection limits. The handling of these missing values significantly impacts subsequent biological interpretations, making imputation a critical preprocessing step. Among the numerous methods available, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), and Random Forest (RF) have established themselves as traditional workhorses due to their solid theoretical foundations and proven practical utility. This application note provides a detailed comparative analysis and experimental protocols for implementing these three fundamental imputation methods within transcriptomics research workflows, particularly focusing on their applicability across different missingness mechanisms: Missing Completely at Random (MCAR), Missing at Random (MAR), and Missing Not at Random (MNAR).

Performance Comparison & Method Selection

The performance of KNN, SVD, and Random Forest imputation methods varies significantly depending on the missing data mechanism, percentage of missingness, and data structure. The following table synthesizes key findings from comparative studies to guide method selection.

Table 1: Performance comparison of KNN, SVD, and Random Forest imputation methods

Method	Best Performing Scenario	Typical Performance Metric (NRMSE/RMSE)	Handling of Data Types	Computational Considerations
K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN)	MCAR, MAR [24] [25]	NRMSE comparable to RF for low missing percentages (5-10%) under MCAR/MAR [24]	Numerical data only; requires scaling for mixed types [26]	Efficient for moderate-sized datasets; performance depends on optimal K selection [27] [25]
Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)	Data with global correlation structures; time-series data [25]	Often higher NRMSE compared to KNN and RF for MCAR/MAR [24]	Numerical data only	Can be computationally intensive for large matrices [25]
Random Forest (RF)	MAR, MCAR, and mixed missingness scenarios; consistently top performer [24] [26]	Lowest NRMSE for most MAR/MCAR scenarios and mixed missingness [24]	Handles mixed data types (numerical & categorical); robust to outliers and non-linearity [26]	Computationally intensive; requires iteration but no need for feature scaling [26]
Special Note (MNAR)	MNAR (left-censored) data is best handled by minimum value (MIN) imputation, not by the three primary methods discussed here [24]	MIN imputation showed lower NRMSE than RF, KNN, and SVD for MNAR data [24]	-	-
(R)-Oxiracetam	(R)-Oxiracetam, CAS:68252-28-8, MF:C6H10N2O3, MW:158.16 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Propargyl-PEG3-OCH2-Boc	Propargyl-PEG3-OCH2-Boc, MF:C15H26O6, MW:302.36 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Evaluation Framework for Imputation Methods

Objective: To systematically evaluate and compare the performance of KNN, SVD, and Random Forest imputation methods on a transcriptomics dataset.

Materials:

• Dataset: A complete transcriptomics dataset (e.g., microarray or RNA-seq count matrix) without missing values.
• Software Environment: R (with packages impute for KNN, missForest for RF, pcaMethods for SVD) or Python (with scikit-learn, missingpy, fancyimpute).
• Hardware: Standard computer for small datasets; high-performance computing resources may be needed for large datasets or multiple iterations with Random Forest.

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Normalize the complete dataset (e.g., logCPM for RNA-seq) and remove any genes with all zero counts to create a ground truth matrix.
• Introduction of Missing Values: Simulate missingness (e.g., 5%, 10%, 20%) under different mechanisms (MCAR, MAR, MNAR) by masking known values in the ground truth matrix. For MNAR, simulate left-censored missingness where values below a certain quantile are set to missing [24].
• Imputation Execution:
  • Apply each of the three imputation methods (KNN, SVD, RF) to the dataset with simulated missing values.
  • For KNN, optimize parameter k (number of neighbors) using a validation set or cross-validation [25].
  • For SVD, select the number of significant principal components to retain.
  • For RF (using missForest), use default parameters (100 trees, 10 maximum iterations) as they are often robust [24].
• Performance Calculation: Calculate the Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE) between the imputed values and the original ground truth values for all artificially masked entries [24].
  • NRMSE = sqrt(mean((imputed - original)^2) / variance(original))
• Iteration: Repeat steps 2-4 at least 100 times to ensure statistical robustness of the results [24].
• Downstream Analysis Validation: To assess biological impact, perform a standard downstream analysis (e.g., differential expression analysis, clustering) on the original data and the imputed datasets. Compare the results, such as the number of differentially expressed genes identified or cluster purity.

Protocol 2: Imputing a Transcriptomics Dataset with Random Forest

Objective: To impute missing values in a real transcriptomics dataset using the robust Random Forest-based missForest algorithm.

Materials:

• Dataset: A transcriptomics dataset with missing values.
• Software: R statistical environment with the missForest package installed.

Procedure:

• Data Loading and Preparation: Load your dataset (e.g., as a matrix or data frame) into R. Ensure that missing values are represented as NA.

• Parameter Initialization: The missForest function has sensible defaults. The key parameters are:
  • maxiter: Maximum number of iterations (default: 10).
  • ntree: Number of trees to grow in each forest (default: 100).
  • variablewise: If TRUE, the algorithm estimates each variable's error separately.
• Run MissForest: Execute the imputation. The algorithm will iteratively impute missing values until the stopping criterion is met.

• Retrieve Imputed Data: Upon completion, extract the imputed data matrix.

• Inspect Convergence (Optional): Check the out-of-bag (OOB) imputation error from each iteration to ensure convergence.

• Output: Use the completed_data matrix for all subsequent transcriptomics analyses.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for evaluating and selecting an imputation method, as detailed in the experimental protocols.

Diagram 1: A logical workflow for evaluating and selecting a transcriptomics data imputation method.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential research reagents and computational tools for imputation experiments

Item Name	Function / Application	Specifications / Notes
R Statistical Environment	Open-source platform for statistical computing and graphics.	Base system required for running imputation packages. Available at https://www.r-project.org/.
missForest R Package	Implementation of Random Forest imputation for mixed-type data.	Key function: missForest(). Robust to non-linearity and complex interactions [26].
impute R Package	Provides KNN imputation algorithm for microarray data.	Key function: impute.knn(). Part of the Bioconductor project [25].
pcaMethods R Package	A collection of PCA-based methods for data imputation.	Includes SVD-based and probabilistic PCA (BPCA) methods. Part of Bioconductor [24] [25].
Python scikit-learn Library	Machine learning library containing KNN regressor/classifier and SVD.	Requires manual implementation of an imputation loop around estimators.
Python missingpy Library	Provides a Scikit-learn-like interface for MissForest imputation.	Allows use of Random Forest imputation within Python workflows [26].
Complete Reference Dataset	A dataset with no missing values, used for benchmarking.	Essential for simulating missingness and evaluating imputation accuracy (e.g., NRMSE calculation) [24] [25].
High-Performance Computing (HPC) Cluster	For computationally intensive imputation on large datasets.	Random Forest imputation can be time-consuming for very large matrices (e.g., single-cell RNA-seq) [26] [28].
PF-00217830	PF-00217830, CAS:846032-02-8, MF:C26H30N4O2, MW:430.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
PF-00277343	PF-00277343, CAS:332926-04-2, MF:C24H20FN3O4, MW:433.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

In transcriptomics and metabolomics research, the presence of missing values and outliers constitutes a significant challenge for data analysis. These data issues arise routinely from limitations in data acquisition techniques, with transcriptomics data typically containing 1–10% missing values affecting up to 90% of genes, while metabolomics datasets often exhibit even higher proportions of missing values (10–20%) [6]. Sources of missing values include corruption of images, scratches on slides, poor hybridization, inadequate resolution, and fabrication errors in transcriptomics, while in metabolomics, factors include lack of peak identification by chromatogram, computational detection limitations, and measurement errors [6]. Simultaneously, outliers frequently occur due to various experimental causes and can severely deteriorate the performance of biomarker selection methods [6].

Most statistical methods for downstream analysis require complete datasets, creating an unmet need for effective imputation techniques that can handle both missing values and outliers concurrently. Traditional approaches based on classical mean and variance using maximum likelihood estimators are not robust against outliers, causing their performance to deteriorate substantially in the presence of anomalous values [6]. Precisely imputing missing values while handling outliers is therefore critically important for identifying robust biomarkers that may provide deeper understanding of etiopathogenetic mechanisms of diseases [6]. The rMisbeta method addresses these dual challenges through a robust iterative approach based on minimum beta divergence method, specifically designed for large-scale transcriptomics and metabolomics data analysis [6].

Theoretical Foundation

The rMisbeta method employs a robust iterative approach using estimators based on the minimum beta divergence method [6]. This approach simultaneously addresses both missing value imputation and outlier handling in a unified framework. The core innovation lies in utilizing the beta divergence method to generate a β-weight function, which is subsequently used to obtain robust estimators and detect outliers within the dataset [6]. Unlike traditional methods that rely on classical mean and variance estimators sensitive to outliers, this robust approach ensures that the imputation process remains stable even in the presence of substantial noise.

The method operates on the fundamental principle that observations contaminated by outliers should have small weights, thereby reducing their influence on the parameter estimation and imputation process [6]. Through an iterative procedure, the algorithm progressively refines these weights and parameter estimates, effectively identifying and down-weighting outliers while imputing missing values with robust estimates. This dual functionality represents a significant advancement over previous methods that typically address either missing values or outliers, but not both simultaneously in an integrated framework.

Comparative Advantages

Evaluation based on both simulated and real data suggests the superiority of the proposed method over other traditional methods across various rates of outliers and missing values [6]. The method maintains almost equal performance with other approaches in the absence of outliers while significantly outperforming them when outliers are present [6]. In practical applications, rMisbeta demonstrated unique capabilities—from a breast cancer dataset, it identified 6 outlying differentially expressed genes that were not detected by other state-of-the-art methods, and from a GC-MS metabolomics dataset, it identified 2 additional metabolites that other methods failed to detect [6].

Beyond its accuracy advantages, rMisbeta offers substantial practical benefits. The algorithm is accurate, simple, and fast, requiring lower computational time compared to other methods [6]. This computational efficiency makes it particularly suitable for large-scale transcriptomics and metabolomics datasets where computational complexity often presents a significant barrier to analysis. The method has been implemented in an R package freely available from CRAN , ensuring accessibility for researchers across the scientific community [6].

Performance Evaluation and Comparative Analysis

Quantitative Performance Metrics

The performance of rMisbeta has been rigorously evaluated against six frequently used missing value imputation methods: Zero, KNN, robust SVD, EM, random forest (RF), and weighted least square approach (WLSA) [6]. Ten performance indices were employed to provide a comprehensive assessment: Frobenius norm (FOBN), accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), detection rate (DR), misclassification error rate (MER), the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and computational runtime [6].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of rMisbeta Against Competing Methods

Method	Handles Outliers	Computational Time	Key Strengths	Limitations
rMisbeta	Yes	Low	Simultaneously handles missing values & outliers; identifies additional biomarkers	-
KNN	No	Medium	Flexible; widely used	Sensitive to noise
Robust SVD	Yes	High	Robust against outliers	Computationally expensive
Random Forest	No	High	Handles non-linear relationships	Computationally intensive
EM	No	Medium	Parametric approach	Cannot deal with outliers
WLSA	Yes	High	Robust approach	Computationally expensive
Zero Imputation	No	Very low	Simple implementation	Introduces significant bias

The experimental results demonstrate that rMisbeta maintains superior performance across these metrics, particularly in the presence of outliers, while maintaining competitive performance when outliers are absent from the datasets [6]. This balanced performance profile makes it a versatile choice for practical research applications where the presence and extent of outliers may not be known in advance.

Application to Real Datasets

In validation using real biological datasets, rMisbeta demonstrated unique value in identifying biomarkers that other methods missed. From analysis of breast cancer transcriptomics data, rMisbeta identified six outlying differentially expressed genes that were not detected by any of the other state-of-the-art methods included in the comparison [6]. Similarly, when applied to GC-MS metabolomics data, the method identified two additional metabolites that other methods failed to detect [6]. These findings suggest that rMisbeta's robust approach enables discovery of biologically significant features that may be overlooked by conventional imputation methods.

The ability to detect these additional biomarkers stems from the method's nuanced handling of outliers. Rather than simply removing or aggressively down-weighting potential outliers, the algorithm incorporates a more sophisticated weighting mechanism that preserves potentially valuable biological information while still mitigating the distorting effects of technical artifacts and measurement errors. This balanced approach is particularly valuable in exploratory research settings where the biological significance of extreme values may not be fully understood.

Experimental Protocols

Workflow Implementation

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for rMisbeta Implementation

Resource Type	Specific Tool/Platform	Function/Purpose	Availability
Software Package	R Statistical Environment	Primary computational platform	https://www.r-project.org/
Specialized Package	rMisbeta R package	Core imputation algorithm	https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rMisbeta
Supporting Packages	impute, missForest, pcaMethods, randomForest, pcaPP	Benchmarking & comparison	Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN)
Evaluation Packages	ROCR, caret	Performance assessment & validation	Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN)

The experimental workflow for implementing rMisbeta begins with data preparation and formatting. The input data should be structured as a matrix with dimensions p × n, where p represents genes/metabolites (rows) and n represents samples/columns [6]. The dataset may contain missing values encoded as NA values, and the method is designed to handle missing completely at random (MCAR) mechanisms [6]. Prior to implementation, researchers should document the extent of missingness in their dataset and consider potential mechanisms generating missing values, as different mechanisms may require specific considerations.

The core implementation protocol involves: (1) installing and loading the rMisbeta package from CRAN; (2) loading the target dataset with missing values; (3) executing the main rMisbeta function with appropriate parameters; (4) extracting the completed dataset for downstream analysis; and (5) validating results using appropriate performance metrics and comparison with biological expectations. For comprehensive evaluation, researchers should compare results with alternative imputation methods using the ten performance indices outlined in the original research [6].

Parameter Optimization and Validation

The rMisbeta method incorporates several parameters that can be optimized for specific dataset characteristics. The key parameters include the beta value controlling the robustness of the estimation and convergence criteria for the iterative algorithm [6]. For most applications, the default parameters provide satisfactory performance, but researchers working with specialized datasets may benefit from parameter tuning. A systematic approach to parameter optimization involves: (1) creating synthetic datasets with known properties similar to the target data; (2) testing parameter combinations across reasonable ranges; (3) evaluating performance using relevant metrics; and (4) selecting optimal parameters for the final analysis.

Validation should encompass both technical and biological assessment. Technical validation includes calculating the ten performance indices used in the original study and comparing them against alternative methods [6]. Biological validation involves assessing whether the imputation results lead to biologically plausible findings and enhance discovery of meaningful biomarkers. Researchers should particularly examine whether additional significant features identified by rMisbeta (like the 6 outlying DEGs in breast cancer data) can be validated through independent methods or align with existing biological knowledge [6].

Integration with Broader Missing Value Handling Framework

The challenge of handling missing values in transcriptomics research extends beyond any single method. In practice, metabolomics data are known to contain a mixture of MAR (Missing At Random), MCAR (Missing Completely At Random), and MNAR (Missing Not At Random) missing data [10]. MNAR values most often arise from metabolite signals being below the limit of detection of a particular instrument, while MAR values can arise from suboptimal data preprocessing [10]. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for selecting appropriate handling strategies.

Recent advances in the field include mechanism-aware imputation (MAI) approaches that first classify missing mechanisms then apply specialized imputation algorithms for each type [10]. These approaches recognize that different missing value types are best imputed with different algorithms—MAR/MCAR values with methods like random forest imputation, and MNAR values with methods like quantile regression imputation of left-censored data (QRILC) [10]. While rMisbeta provides a robust unified framework, researchers should consider the potential mixture of missing mechanisms in their datasets and may benefit from combining insights from multiple approaches.

The rMisbeta method represents a significant advancement in handling missing values and outliers in transcriptomics and metabolomics data. Its robust approach based on minimum beta divergence method provides both theoretical sophistication and practical utility, enabling researchers to extract more meaningful biological insights from noisy datasets. The method's ability to identify biomarkers that other methods miss, combined with its computational efficiency, makes it a valuable addition to the bioinformatics toolkit.

Future directions in this field may include further refinement of robustness parameters, integration with mechanism-aware approaches for handling different types of missing data, and extension to multi-omics data integration. As transcriptomics technologies continue to evolve, producing increasingly complex datasets, robust statistical methods like rMisbeta will play an increasingly vital role in ensuring the reliability and reproducibility of research findings. The availability of the method as an open-source R package ensures that it will be accessible to researchers across the scientific community and can be continuously improved through collective scientific effort.

The advent of high-throughput transcriptomics technologies, particularly single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), has revolutionized biological research by enabling the characterization of gene expression patterns at unprecedented resolution. However, a pervasive challenge in transcriptomics data analysis is the presence of missing values, often referred to as "dropout events," where expressed transcripts fail to be detected due to technical limitations including low RNA capture efficiency, amplification biases, and stochastic molecular interactions [5] [29]. These missing values obscure true biological signals, complicate downstream analyses such as cell clustering, lineage tracing, and differential expression, and ultimately impede scientific discovery and therapeutic development.

The broader thesis of handling missing values in transcriptomics research has evolved from simple statistical imputation to sophisticated computational frameworks capable of discerning technical artifacts from biological truths. Within this context, deep learning has emerged as a transformative paradigm, offering models that can capture complex, non-linear relationships within high-dimensional transcriptomics data. This article focuses on two particularly influential deep learning architectures: Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Autoencoders (AEs), examining their implementation in tools like cnnImpute and DCA, and providing a detailed guide for their application in research and drug development.

Deep Learning Architectures for Imputation

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) in Transcriptomics

CNNs, while traditionally dominant in image processing, have found novel applications in transcriptomics by leveraging their strength in identifying local patterns and hierarchical features. The cnnImpute method exemplifies this adaptation. It employs a gamma-normal distribution to first estimate the probability that a zero expression value represents a true dropout. Subsequently, it uses a CNN-based model to recover the expression values with a high likelihood of being missing [5].

A key innovation of cnnImpute is its treatment of gene relationships. The model recovers missing values in target genes by utilizing information from highly correlated, co-expressed genes. The target genes are processed in subsets, and an individual CNN model is constructed for each subset. This approach not only enhances robustness but also significantly accelerates the training process [5]. The architecture typically involves convolutional layers that learn the expression correlations within neighboring genes, effectively capturing the spatial dependencies in the data structure.

Autoencoder-Based Models

Autoencoders are a class of neural networks designed for unsupervised learning of efficient codings. Their fundamental structure comprises an encoder that compresses input data into a latent-space representation and a decoder that reconstructs the data from this representation. In imputation, the model is trained to reconstruct the input, thereby learning to predict missing values.

• Deep Count Autoencoder (DCA): DCA specifically utilizes a denoising autoencoder with a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) loss function. This model is not merely an imputation tool but a denoiser that accounts for the unique characteristics of scRNA-seq count data, including over-dispersion and excess zeros [5] [30]. By doing so, it distinguishes between technical dropouts and true biological zeros, leading to a more accurate recovery of gene expression patterns.
• Bidirectional Autoencoder (BiAEImpute): This advanced variant employs a dual-autoencoder framework. A row-wise autoencoder learns the relationships and features between cells, while a column-wise autoencoder learns the relationships between genes. The imputed values are derived from the synergistic integration of these two learned feature sets, offering a comprehensive approach that captures both cellular and genetic heterogeneity [29] [31].
• Graph-Based Autoencoders: For spatial transcriptomics, models like STACI (Spatial Transcriptomics using Autoencoders and Chromatin Imaging) extend the autoencoder concept by integrating multiple data modalities. STACI uses a graph-based autoencoder to learn a joint representation of gene expression, spatial cell location, and chromatin imaging data, enabling the prediction of one modality from another [32].

Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)

Beyond CNNs and AEs, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) represent a powerful alternative. Framing imputation as a generative task, GANs can learn the underlying data distribution to produce realistic synthetic data for filling missing values.

• scMASKGAN: This method transforms the scRNA-seq matrix imputation into an image inpainting task. It uses a masking mechanism to preserve cellular information and combines CNNs, attention mechanisms, and residual networks (ResNets) within a GAN framework to capture both global and local gene-expression features [33].
• SmartImpute: This framework employs a modified Generative Adversarial Imputation Network (GAIN) with a multi-task discriminator. Its distinctive feature is a targeted approach, focusing imputation on a predefined set of biologically relevant marker genes. This enhances computational efficiency and ensures that the imputation is directly relevant to key cellular functions and identities [20].

Table 1: Summary of Deep Learning-Based Imputation Methods

Method	Core Architecture	Key Feature	Best Suited For
cnnImpute [5]	Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	Estimates dropout probability; uses gene correlation	Large-scale scRNA-seq datasets with complex gene interactions
DCA [5] [30]	Denoising Autoencoder (AE)	Uses ZINB loss for count data; denoising	General scRNA-seq denoising and imputation
BiAEImpute [29] [31]	Bidirectional Autoencoder	Learns both cell-wise and gene-wise relationships	Datasets where preserving cell and gene heterogeneity is critical
scMASKGAN [33]	Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)	Frames imputation as image inpainting; uses masking	Data with high dropout rates; requires preservation of rare cell types
SmartImpute [20]	GAN (GAIN)	Targeted imputation of marker genes	Research focused on specific cell types or pathways; large datasets
STACI [32]	Graph-based Autoencoder	Integrates multi-omics data (transcriptomics, imaging)	Spatial transcriptomics and multi-omics studies

Performance Comparison and Benchmarking

Rigorous benchmarking is crucial for selecting an appropriate imputation method. Performance is typically evaluated using metrics like Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) between imputed values and held-out true expression values.

In a comprehensive assessment, cnnImpute demonstrated superior performance, achieving the highest PCC and the lowest Mean Square Error (MSE) on multiple Jurkat and Grün datasets, outperforming other methods like ALRA, bayNorm, and scImpute [5]. Similarly, BiAEImpute was shown to exhibit superior performance across four real scRNA-seq datasets (Zeisel, Romanov, Usoskin, Klein) compared to existing methods, improving downstream tasks like cell clustering and trajectory inference [29] [31].

It is important to note that performance can be dataset-dependent. For instance, in cross-omics imputation for surface protein expression, Seurat v4 (PCA) and Seurat v3 (PCA) demonstrated exceptional performance among benchmarked methods [28]. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to validate the chosen method's performance on their specific data type.

Table 2: Key Quantitative Performance Metrics from Benchmarking Studies

Method / Dataset	Evaluation Metric	Reported Performance	Comparative Context
cnnImpute (Jurkat dataset) [5]	Pearson Correlation (PCC)Mean Square Error (MSE)	Highest PCC, Lowest MSE	Statistically significant (P < 0.014) outperformance over 10 other methods.
BiAEImpute (Multiple datasets) [29]	Clustering Accuracy,Marker Gene Identification	Superior performance	Consistently outperformed MAGIC, DrImpute, scImpute, bayNorm, ALRA, and DeepImpute.
scMASKGAN (7 real datasets) [33]	Gene-Gene Correlation,Trajectory Inference	Excellent across metrics	Enhanced downstream analyses and restored biologically meaningful patterns.
SmartImpute (HNSCC data) [20]	Cell Type Prediction Accuracy	Improved prediction accuracy	e.g., Fibroblast identification accuracy improved from 57.3% to over 90%.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Standard Workflow for cnnImpute

The following is a detailed protocol for implementing the cnnImpute method based on its published methodology [5].

• Data Preprocessing:

  • Input: Raw scRNA-seq count matrix (Cells × Genes).
  • Filtering: Remove cells with no expressed genes and genes that are not expressed in any cell.
  • Normalization: Normalize the filtered count matrix for sequencing depth (e.g., counts per million - CPM, or library size normalization). Log-transformation may be applied.
  • Dimensionality Reduction & Clustering: Perform t-SNE (or UMAP) on the preprocessed data, followed by clustering (e.g., using ADPclust or k-means) to form M cell clusters. This step helps in modeling cell-type-specific expression.

• Missing Probability Assessment:

  • Employ an Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm with a gamma-normal mixture model to compute the dropout probability for each expression value in the matrix.
  • Set a threshold T (default is 0.5). Expression values with a dropout probability > T are flagged as missing and targeted for imputation.

• Model Training and Imputation:

  • Target Gene Selection: Genes with at least one value flagged as missing in any cell are designated as target genes.
  • Input Gene Selection: For each target gene, identify a set of highly correlated genes to be used as input features for the CNN.
  • Subsetting: Divide the target genes into subsets of size N (default N=512).
  • CNN Training: For each gene subset, train an individual CNN model. The architecture typically includes:
    • Input Layer: Takes the expression vector of correlated genes.
    • Convolutional & Pooling Layers: To learn local patterns and reduce dimensionality.
    • Fully Connected Layers: To map the learned features to the imputed output.
    • Output Layer: Produces the imputed expression value for the target gene.
  • Imputation: Use the trained CNN models to predict and recover the missing values for all target genes across all cells.

• Output: A complete, imputed gene expression matrix.

Protocol 2: Targeted Imputation with SmartImpute

This protocol outlines the steps for the targeted, marker-gene-focused imputation using SmartImpute [20].

• Data Preprocessing:

  • Follow standard preprocessing as in Protocol 1 to obtain a normalized expression matrix.

• Marker Gene Panel Definition:

  • Predefined Panel: Start with a panel of known marker genes relevant to the tissue or system under study (e.g., the BD Rhapsody Immune Response Panel).
  • Custom Panel (tpGPT): Use the provided R package (tpGPT) that leverages a GPT model to recommend a customized marker gene panel based on the specific dataset and research question.

• Data Preparation for GAIN:

  • Extract the expression matrix for the target marker gene panel.
  • A proportion of non-target genes can be included in the training to improve model generalizability without being imputed.

• Model Training with Multi-task GAIN:

  • Generator (G): Takes the expression vector with missing values and a noise vector as input, and outputs a complete vector.
  • Discriminator (D): A multi-task discriminator that not only tries to distinguish between "real" and "imputed" entries but also identifies whether a value was originally observed or imputed. This helps preserve true biological zeros.
  • Adversarial Training: Train G and D in a minimax game. The generator learns to produce realistic imputations that fool the discriminator, while the discriminator becomes better at identifying the imputed values.

• Imputation and Output:

  • Apply the trained generator to impute only the missing values within the target marker gene panel.
  • Output: An expression matrix where missing values in the marker genes are imputed, preserving the original values for all other genes.

Figure 1: The cnnImpute Workflow. A schematic overview of the key steps in the cnnImpute protocol, from data preprocessing to the final imputed matrix.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Deep Learning Imputation

Item / Resource	Type	Function / Application	Example / Note
Normalized scRNA-seq Matrix	Data	The primary input for all imputation methods.	Output from tools like Cell Ranger (10X Genomics) or Scanpy (Python).
Marker Gene Panel	Data / Software	Defines the target genes for focused imputation (e.g., SmartImpute).	Predefined panels (e.g., BD Rhapsody) or custom panels from tpGPT [20].
Reference scRNA-seq Data	Data	Used as a complementary information source for imputation in spatial transcriptomics.	High-quality, full-transcriptome data from similar tissues/cells [34].
GPU Computing Resources	Hardware	Accelerates the training of deep learning models.	Essential for processing large datasets (>10,000 cells) in a timely manner.
Python / R Deep Learning Frameworks	Software	Provides the environment to build, train, and run imputation models.	TensorFlow, PyTorch (for DCA, scMASKGAN); R torch (for some Seurat functions).
Clustering Algorithm	Software	Identifies cell clusters for probability assessment or model constraint.	ADPclust, k-means [5]; Leiden algorithm.

The integration of deep learning models like CNNs and Autoencoders has undeniably revolutionized the field of transcriptomics data imputation. Methods such as cnnImpute, DCA, and BiAEImpute offer powerful, non-linear approaches to recover missing values, thereby revealing biological signals that were previously obscured by technical noise. The choice of method depends on the specific research goal: CNN-based methods are excellent for capturing gene-gene correlations, autoencoders provide robust denoising, and GANs offer high fidelity in data generation, especially for targeted approaches.

Looking forward, the field is moving towards greater integration and specialization. Key future directions include:

• Multi-omics Imputation: Seamlessly integrating transcriptomics with other data layers like epigenomics (ATAC-seq) and proteomics (CITE-seq) using unified deep learning models, as previewed by STACI and spaMGCN [32] [35].
• Interpretable AI: Developing models that are not only accurate but also provide biological insights into the mechanisms underlying gene regulation and expression.
• Scalability and Efficiency: As single-cell datasets grow to encompass millions of cells, creating lightweight, efficient algorithms that can scale without compromising performance will be critical.
• Cross-modality Prediction: Leveraging deep learning to predict one data modality from another (e.g., protein abundance from RNA expression) will become a standard tool, reducing experimental costs and complexity [28].

For researchers and drug developers, mastering these computational tools is no longer optional but essential for extracting the full value from transcriptomics data, ultimately accelerating the pace of discovery and therapeutic innovation.

In transcriptomics research, the pervasive challenge of missing data often obstructs the path to biological discovery. Traditional strategies, particularly imputation, hypothesize values for missing data points, a process that can inadvertently introduce bias and obscure genuine biological signals [36]. This application note explores an innovative paradigm shift: imputation-free data integration. We focus on the Batch-Effect Reduction Trees (BERT) algorithm, a groundbreaking method that enables large-scale integrative analyses of incomplete omic profiles without altering the original data through imputation [37]. Framed within a broader thesis on handling missing values, this document provides detailed protocols and resource guides to empower researchers and drug development professionals to leverage BERT for more reliable and robust transcriptomic studies.

Background: The Missing Data Problem in Transcriptomics

Missing data in transcriptomics arises from multiple sources, including technical dropouts in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) where low mRNA capture efficiency results in false zeros, and systematic batch effects from combining datasets acquired at different times or with different protocols [37] [20] [5]. While a plethora of imputation methods exist—from deep learning models like cnnImpute [5] and SmartImpute [20] to statistical approaches—they operate on the assumption that the missingness mechanism is known or can be reliably modeled. Violations of these assumptions can lead to the introduction of artificial noise and the distortion of downstream analytical results [20] [36]. BERT circumvents these risks by providing a framework to integrate and compare datasets without filling in the missing values.

Core Methodology: Batch-Effect Reduction Trees (BERT)

BERT is a high-performance data integration method designed specifically for large-scale analyses of incomplete omic profiles. Its core innovation lies in using a binary tree structure to recursively correct for batch effects, all while preserving the inherent missingness structure of the data [37].

Algorithmic Workflow and Key Features

The BERT framework operates through several key stages, which are visualized in the workflow diagram below.

Diagram 1: BERT data integration workflow. The process begins with multiple incomplete datasets, constructs a binary correction tree, and performs pairwise integration while preserving missing data structure.

• Tree-Based Integration: BERT decomposes the integration task into a binary tree where pairs of batches are selected and corrected at each level. This hierarchical approach ultimately yields a single, integrated dataset [37].
• Handling Incomplete Features: In each pairwise correction step, BERT applies established methods like ComBat or limma only to features with sufficient numerical data (at least two values per batch). Features where numerical values originate from only one of the two input batches are propagated to the next tree level without changes, thus preserving all original numeric values [37].
• Accounting for Covariates and Design Imbalance: A significant advantage of BERT is its ability to incorporate user-defined categorical covariates (e.g., biological conditions like sex or disease status). This allows the algorithm to distinguish batch effects from true biological signals. Furthermore, BERT can leverage reference samples (e.g., control samples or samples with known covariate levels) to guide the correction process, even for samples with unknown covariates, thus addressing a common challenge in real-world data integration [37].
• High-Performance Computing: The algorithm is designed for efficiency and scalability. It can decompose the binary tree into independent sub-trees that are processed in parallel, leveraging multi-core and distributed-memory systems for a runtime improvement of up to 11x compared to previous methods [37].

Quantitative Performance Benchmarking

Extensive benchmarking against HarmonizR, the only other available method for imputation-free integration of incomplete omic data, demonstrates BERT's superior performance across several key metrics [37].

Table 1: Performance comparison of BERT versus HarmonizR.

Performance Metric	BERT	HarmonizR (Full Dissection)	HarmonizR (Blocking of 4 Batches)
Data Retention	Retains 100% of original numeric values	Up to 27% data loss with 50% missingness	Up to 88% data loss with 50% missingness
Runtime Improvement	Up to 11x faster than HarmonizR	Baseline	Slower than BERT, varies with blocking strategy
Integration Quality (ASW Label)	Up to 2x improvement in Average Silhouette Width	Lower than BERT	Lower than BERT
Handling of Covariates	Supports covariates and reference samples	Does not address design imbalance	Does not address design imbalance

The data shows that BERT not only preserves data integrity more effectively but also achieves substantial gains in computational speed and the biological fidelity of the integrated output, as measured by the Average Silhouette Width (ASW) with respect to biological labels [37].

Experimental Protocol for Spatial Transcriptomics Data Integration

The following section provides a detailed, step-by-step protocol for applying BERT to integrate multiple spatial transcriptomics datasets, such as those generated by the 10x Visium platform, accounting for both batch effects and biological covariates.

Pre-processing and Input Data Preparation

• Data Collection and Formatting: Gather your spatial transcriptomics datasets (batches). Ensure each dataset is in a standardized format, such as a data.frame or SummarizedExperiment object [37]. The data should be raw or normalized count matrices with genes as rows and spots/cells as columns.
• Metadata Compilation: Create a comprehensive metadata table. This is critical for BERT's covariate adjustment. The table must include, for each sample:
  • Batch: The source dataset or batch identifier.
  • Covariate_1, Covariate_2, ...: Biological conditions of interest (e.g., Disease_State, Patient_Sex, Treatment_Group). All samples must have values for these fields.
  • Reference_Status: A binary indicator (TRUE/FALSE) marking a subset of samples to be used as stable references for batch-effect estimation (e.g., control samples or samples with universally present cell types) [37].
• Data Pre-processing: Perform standard single-cell/spatial pre-processing steps independently on each batch using tools like Seurat or Scanpy [38]. This includes quality control, normalization, and identification of highly variable genes. The goal is to input cleaned, normalized expression matrices into BERT.

BERT Integration and Downstream Analysis

• Parameter Configuration and Execution: Load the pre-processed expression matrices and metadata into R. Set the BERT parameters, using reasonable defaults or optimizing based on your data scale.

• Quality Control of Integration: Assess the success of integration by calculating the Average Silhouette Width (ASW) [37].
  • ASW(Batch): Calculate the silhouette width with respect to batch of origin. A low ASW(Batch) indicates successful removal of technical batch effects.
  • ASW(Label): Calculate the silhouette width with respect to your biological covariates (e.g., Disease_State). A high ASW(Label) indicates that biological variation was preserved.
• Downstream Biological Analysis: Proceed with your analysis on the integrated, batch-corrected data. This can include clustering, cell type annotation using reference-based methods (e.g., SingleR, CellTypist [38]), differential expression analysis, and trajectory inference, confident that the results are not confounded by batch effects.

Successful implementation of imputation-free data integration relies on a suite of computational tools and resources. The table below catalogues key solutions used in the featured field.

Table 2: Key research reagent solutions for imputation-free data integration.

Tool/Resource	Function/Purpose	Application Context
BERT (Batch-Effect Reduction Trees) [37]	High-performance, imputation-free data integration of incomplete omic profiles.	General omics data integration (transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics).
HarmonizR [37]	Imputation-free data integration using matrix dissection; benchmark for BERT.	General omics data integration.
ComBat / limma [37]	Established batch-effect correction algorithms used as the core engine within BERT.	Adjusting for batch effects in genomic data.
Seurat / Scanpy [38]	Standard ecosystems for single-cell and spatial transcriptomics data pre-processing and analysis.	Data normalization, QC, and downstream analysis post-integration.
SingleR / Azimuth / CellTypist [38]	Automated cell type annotation tools using reference datasets.	Downstream analysis after integration.
Space Ranger [38]	Official 10x Genomics pipeline for processing raw Visium sequencing data.	Generating input count matrices and spatial coordinates from FASTQ files.
Xenium Analyzer / Ranger [38]	Official 10x Genomics pipelines for processing and reanalysis of Xenium data.	Generating and working with subcellular resolution spatial data.
scBERT / scGPT [39]	Transformer-based models for single-cell analysis, including cell type classification.	Demonstrates the application of BERT-like architectures in bioinformatics.

Logical Framework and Decision Pathway

The following diagram outlines the key decision points a researcher must navigate when considering an imputation-free approach with BERT for their transcriptomics study.

Diagram 2: Decision pathway for BERT application. A flowchart to guide researchers on when to adopt the BERT framework based on their data characteristics and research goals.

The BERT framework represents a significant leap forward for integrative transcriptomics, moving beyond the assumptions and potential pitfalls of imputation. By enabling the direct integration of incomplete datasets while rigorously accounting for batch effects and biological covariates, BERT ensures that conclusions are drawn from the original data rather than from imputed values. The detailed protocols, performance benchmarks, and resource guides provided in this application note equip researchers and drug developers with the knowledge to implement this robust, imputation-free approach, thereby enhancing the reliability and reproducibility of their findings in complex biological studies and therapeutic programs.

Handling Block-Wise Missingness in Multi-Omics Studies

In multi-omics studies, researchers often encounter block-wise missing data, where entire omics data blocks are absent for specific samples. This phenomenon differs dramatically from randomly scattered missing values and presents substantial analytical challenges. In practical scenarios, certain samples may have complete genomic and transcriptomic data but entirely lack proteomic measurements, while other samples show the opposite pattern. This missingness structure frequently arises from technical constraints, cost limitations, sample availability issues, or the integration of disparate datasets from different studies.

The presence of block-wise missing data complicates the application of standard machine learning approaches, which typically require complete feature matrices for all samples. Common solutions like complete-case analysis (removing samples with any missing data) can drastically reduce sample size and statistical power, while traditional imputation methods often perform poorly when entire data blocks are missing. Addressing this challenge requires specialized methodologies that can leverage all available information without introducing substantial bias. This protocol focuses on practical approaches for handling block-wise missingness, enabling researchers to extract robust biological insights from incomplete multi-omics datasets, with particular emphasis on transcriptomics research.

Understanding Profiles and Data Availability Patterns

The concept of "profiles" provides a systematic framework for characterizing patterns of data availability across samples. For a study incorporating S different omics sources, each sample can be assigned a profile based on which omics layers are available. Mathematically, this can be represented using a binary indicator vector for each observation:

I[1,...,S] = [I(1),...,I(S)] where I(i) = 1 if the i-th data source is available, 0 otherwise

These binary vectors can be converted to decimal numbers for easier reference, creating distinct profile categories. For example, in a three-omics study (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics), profile 6 (binary 110) would indicate samples containing genomics and transcriptomics data but missing proteomics, while profile 7 (binary 111) represents complete cases with all three omics layers [40].

This profiling system enables the organization of samples into groups with identical missingness patterns, forming the foundation for sophisticated analysis strategies that maximize information retention from partially observed datasets. The bwm R package implements this profile-based approach, allowing researchers to efficiently manage and analyze datasets with block-wise missingness [40] [41].

Table 1: Example Profiles in a Three-Omics Study

Profile Number	Binary Representation	Genomics	Transcriptomics	Proteomics
7	111	Available	Available	Available
6	110	Available	Available	Missing
5	101	Available	Missing	Available
3	011	Missing	Available	Available

The Two-Step Optimization Algorithm for Block-Wise Missing Data

Theoretical Foundation

The two-step optimization approach provides a robust framework for analyzing multi-omics data with block-wise missingness without resorting to imputation. This method builds upon a linear model that incorporates multiple data sources. For the i-th omics source, let X_i denote an n × p_i data matrix, where n is the number of samples and p_i represents the number of variables. The response vector y (continuous or binary) is modeled as:

y = Σ_{i=1}^S X_i β_i + ε

where ε denotes the noise term, while β_i ∈ R^{p_i × 1} represents the vector of unknown parameters for the i-th data source. To enable analysis at both feature and source levels, an additional parameter vector α = (α_1, ⋯, α_S) ∈ R^S is introduced, incorporating learned models into the regression setup:

y = Σ_{i=1}^S α_i X_i β_i + ε [40] [41]

This formulation allows the model to learn weights for both individual features (β_i) and entire omics sources (α_i), providing a flexible framework for dealing with block-wise missingness.

Algorithm Implementation

The two-step optimization procedure operates as follows:

Step 1: Profile-Based Model Fitting For each profile m in the set of all profiles pf, group all samples with profile m together with those that have complete data in all sources defined by profile m (source-compatible profiles). This creates complete data blocks for different sets of omics sources. The model for profile m can be formulated as:

y_m = Σ_{m ∈ pf}^{n_m} Σ_{i=1}^S α_{mi} X_{mi} β_i + ε

where X_{mi} represents the n_m × p_i submatrix of the i-th source for profile m, n_m is the number of samples containing m in their profiles, α_{mi} is the weight related to the matrix X_{mi}, and y_m denotes the response vector restricted to those samples [40].

Step 2: Parameter Estimation Through Regularization The algorithm estimates parameters β = (β_1, ..., β_S) and α = (α_1, ..., α_S) from the available data (X_1, ..., X_S, y) using regularization techniques to handle high-dimensionality. For omics sources with large numbers of features, Lasso or Elastic-Net regularization can be incorporated to yield sparse models and perform feature selection. The optimization aims to minimize the loss function while considering the block-wise missing structure [41].

Experimental Protocol for Handling Block-Wise Missing Data

Data Preprocessing and Profile Identification

Materials and Reagents:

• Multi-omics datasets (e.g., genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics)
• Computational environment with R or Python installed
• bwm R package (for profile-based analysis)
• Normalization tools appropriate for each omics data type

Procedure:

• Data Collection and Integration: Gather omics datasets from various sources, ensuring proper sample matching and metadata organization.
• Quality Control: Perform omics-specific quality control measures. For transcriptomics data, this includes filtering lowly expressed genes, checking for batch effects, and normalizing using appropriate methods (e.g., TPM for RNA-seq data).
• Profile Identification: For each sample, create a binary availability vector indicating which omics layers are present. Convert these binary vectors to decimal profile numbers for easier handling.
• Profile Grouping: Group samples according to their profiles and identify source-compatible profiles that can be combined to form complete data blocks for analysis.

Table 2: Performance of Two-Step Method on Multi-Omics Data

Application Scenario	Performance Metric	Results	Missing Data Conditions
Breast Cancer Subtype Classification	Accuracy	73% - 81%	Various block-wise missingness patterns [40]
Breast Cancer Binary Classification	Accuracy	86% - 92%	Block-wise missingness in multiple omics [41]
Breast Cancer Binary Classification	F1 Score	68% - 79%	Block-wise missingness in multiple omics [41]
Exposome Data Regression	Correlation (true vs predicted)	72% - 76%	Block-wise missingness in multiple omics [41]
Exposome Data Regression	Correlation (true vs predicted)	~75%	Various block-wise missingness patterns [40]

Implementation of the Two-Step Algorithm

Materials:

• R statistical environment (version 4.0 or higher)
• bwm package installed from CRAN or GitHub
• High-performance computing resources for large datasets

Procedure:

• Package Installation: Install and load the bwm package in R using the commands:

• Data Preparation: Format your multi-omics data as a list of matrices, where each matrix represents a different omics type. Ensure sample alignment across matrices, with missing blocks represented as NA values or complete absences of rows.

• Model Configuration: Set up the model parameters, including:

  • Specification of response variable type (continuous, binary, or multi-class)
  • Regularization parameters for feature selection
  • Optimization parameters (convergence tolerance, maximum iterations)

• Model Training: Execute the two-step algorithm using the primary function in the bwm package. For a continuous response variable, the basic syntax is:

  where X_list is the list of omics matrices and y is the response vector.

• Result Extraction: Extract and interpret the model outputs, including:

  • Source-level weights (α values) indicating the importance of each omics type
  • Feature-level coefficients (β values) for biomarker identification
  • Performance metrics appropriate to the response type

Validation and Performance Assessment

Experimental Validation Protocol

To evaluate the effectiveness of the two-step approach for handling block-wise missing data, implement the following validation procedure:

Materials:

• Complete multi-omics dataset (with no missing values) for benchmarking
• Computational resources for cross-validation
• Performance metrics appropriate for the analysis task (e.g., AUC for classification, correlation for regression)

Procedure:

• Baseline Establishment: First, apply standard machine learning methods to the complete cases only (samples with all omics layers present) to establish baseline performance metrics.

• Artificial Missingness Introduction: Systematically introduce block-wise missingness patterns into the complete dataset by removing entire omics blocks for randomly selected subsets of samples. Vary the percentage of missingness (e.g., 10%, 30%, 50%) to assess robustness.

• Method Application: Apply the two-step optimization method to the datasets with artificial missingness, using the profile-based approach to leverage all available samples.

• Performance Comparison: Compare the performance of the two-step method against conventional approaches:

  • Complete-case analysis (using only samples with all omics present)
  • Simple imputation methods (mean, median, k-NN imputation)
  • Advanced imputation techniques (MICE, matrix factorization)

• Statistical Testing: Perform appropriate statistical tests to determine if performance differences between methods are significant.

Expected Results and Interpretation

When properly implemented, the two-step optimization approach should demonstrate several advantages over conventional methods:

• Superior Performance with Missing Data: The method should maintain higher predictive accuracy compared to complete-case analysis, particularly as the rate of block-wise missingness increases.

• Robust Feature Selection: The algorithm should consistently identify important biomarkers across different missingness scenarios, with feature weights (β values) showing stability despite varying missing data patterns.

• Source Importance Quantification: The source-level weights (α values) should provide insights into the relative importance of different omics types for predicting the outcome of interest.

Research has demonstrated that this approach can achieve accuracy between 73% and 81% for multi-class cancer subtype classification and maintain a correlation of approximately 75% between true and predicted responses in regression tasks, even under various block-wise missing data scenarios [40] [41].

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Handling Block-Wise Missing Data

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
bwm R Package	Software Package	Two-step optimization for block-wise missing data	General multi-omics integration with missing blocks [40] [41]
Flexynesis	Deep Learning Toolkit	Multi-omics integration with various architectures	Precision oncology, supports missing data [42]
LEOPARD	Neural Network Method	Missing view completion via representation disentanglement	Longitudinal multi-timepoint omics data [43]
ChainImputer	Neural Network Method	Iterative imputation using cumulative features	General missing value imputation [44]
SmartImpute	Targeted Framework	Marker-gene-focused imputation for scRNA-seq	Single-cell RNA sequencing data [20]
cnnImpute	CNN-Based Method	Missing value recovery using convolutional networks	scRNA-seq data with dropout events [5]

Missing covariate data is a common and critical problem in observational transcriptomic studies. While complete case analysis—dropping samples with any missing data—is frequently used, it can lead to reduced statistical power and biased model estimates [7]. This issue is particularly acute in high-dimensional settings, such as RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) studies, where the number of genes (features) far exceeds the number of samples (individuals) [7]. The problem of missing data is not confined to bulk RNA-seq; it is also a predominant feature of single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, where a significant number of reported zero expression values are attributed to technical "dropout" events rather than true biological silence [3] [5].

While single imputation (SI) methods replace a missing value with a single predicted value, they often result in over-confident standard errors and biased coefficients [7]. Multiple imputation (MI) overcomes this by generating multiple plausible values for each missing data point, allowing for the inherent uncertainty in the imputation process to be propagated through the subsequent statistical analysis [7]. However, standard MI procedures require the outcome variable (e.g., gene expression) to be included in the imputation model to avoid bias, a requirement that is computationally infeasible with tens of thousands of genes [7].

The RNAseqCovarImpute method and its accompanying R/Bioconductor package were developed to address this specific challenge. By integrating principal component analysis (PCA) of the transcriptome into the multiple imputation framework, it enables robust handling of missing covariates in high-dimensional gene expression studies [7]. This protocol details the application of the RNAseqCovarImpute pipeline, which is designed for seamless integration with the popular limma-voom differential expression analysis workflow.

Background: The Nature and Impact of Missing Data in Transcriptomics

Missing data in transcriptomics can arise from various sources, broadly categorized as technical or biological:

• Technical Artefacts: In bulk RNA-seq, missing values can occur due to sample processing errors, inadequate sequencing depth, or low expression levels that fall below the detection threshold [2]. In scRNA-seq, "dropout" events are a major technical concern, where an mRNA molecule is expressed in a cell but not detected during sequencing [3] [5].
• Biological Reality: An emerging hypothesis suggests that some missing values, termed "True Biological Missingness" (TBM), represent genes that are genuinely not expressed in a subset of individuals due to inter-individual variation [2]. Indiscriminate imputation of such TBM genes can introduce bias by assigning expression values to biologically silent genes.

The Critical Need for Multiple over Single Imputation

The core advantage of MI over SI lies in its ability to quantify and account for the uncertainty of the imputed values. In an MI procedure:

• m imputed datasets are created.
• The desired statistical model (e.g., linear regression for differential expression) is fit to each of the m datasets.
• The results from the m analyses are pooled using Rubin's rules, which combine the parameter estimates and adjust their standard errors to reflect the within-imputation and between-imputation variability [7].

This process yields more accurate standard errors and helps minimize bias in model estimates compared to SI or complete case analysis [7].

The RNAseqCovarImpute Methodology

The RNAseqCovarImpute pipeline introduces a principled approach to handle missing covariates in RNA-seq studies. Its core innovation is the use of PCA to reduce the dimensionality of the gene expression matrix, thereby making it feasible to include outcome information in the MI prediction model.

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and key decision points within the RNAseqCovarImpute pipeline:

Core Computational Strategy

The package provides two primary methods for accommodating high-dimensional outcome data during imputation:

• MI PCA Method (Recommended): This method performs PCA on the normalized log-counts per million (logCPM) matrix for all genes. The top principal components (PCs), which capture the major sources of transcriptional variation, are then included as variables in the imputation prediction model for the missing covariates. This satisfies the MI requirement of including outcome information without the intractable dimensionality of using all genes [7].
• MI Gene Bin Method: This alternative approach bins genes into smaller, pseudo-independent groups and runs the MI and analysis pipeline separately for each bin. While effective, this method is computationally less efficient as it requires hundreds of iterations of the entire pipeline [7].

Determining the Number of Principal Components

The number of PCs to retain in the imputation model is a critical parameter. RNAseqCovarImpute supports several criteria, with simulation studies indicating that Horn's parallel analysis performs best, especially with higher levels of missing data [7]. Horn's analysis retains PCs with eigenvalues greater than those derived from random data, providing a robust, data-driven cutoff [7].

• Horn's Parallel Analysis: Retains 35 PCs (in the ECHO-PATHWAYS dataset example) and demonstrates superior control of false positive rates [7].
• 80% Variance Explained: A more liberal criterion, retaining 213 PCs in the same example [7].
• Elbow Method: A more conservative criterion, retaining 15 PCs [7].

Experimental Protocol and Performance Benchmarking

Performance Evaluation on Real-World Datasets

The performance of RNAseqCovarImpute (using the MI PCA Horn method) was rigorously evaluated against complete case (CC) analysis and random forest single imputation (SI) on three real RNA-seq datasets with simulated missing covariate data [7].

Table 1: Real-World Datasets Used for Benchmarking RNAseqCovarImpute

Dataset Name	Sample Size (N)	Tissue	Predictor of Interest	Key Covariates	Number of Genes
ECHO-PATHWAYS [7]	994	Placenta	Maternal Age	Fetal sex, batch, tobacco/alcohol use, income	14,026
NSCLC [7]	670	Lung (tumor & non-malignant)	Sex	Age, smoking status, sampling site	Information not in snippet
EBV [7]	384	Primary B lymphocytes	Time in culture	EBV infection status, donor source	Information not in snippet

Quantitative Performance Metrics

The method was assessed based on its ability to uncover true positive differentially expressed genes (TPRs), limit false discovery rates (FPRs), and minimize bias under different missingness mechanisms (MCAR, MAR) and proportions (5-30%) [7].

Table 2: Comparative Performance of Imputation Methods in Simulation Studies

Method	True Positive Rate (TPR)	False Positive Rate (FPR)	Handling of Bias	Key Findings
RNAseqCovarImpute (MI PCA Horn)	High, comparable to other methods [7]	Lowest FPR across most scenarios, consistently controlled at 0.05 [7]	Minimizes bias [7]	Recommended method; outperforms CC and SI, robust at higher missing data levels [7]
Complete Case (CC)	Reduced due to loss of samples	Variable	Can introduce bias	Loss of statistical power and potential for biased estimates [7]
Single Imputation (SI)	High	Higher than MI PCA Horn [7]	Can result in biased coefficients	Produces over-confident standard errors [7]
MI PCA (80% Variance)	High	>0.05 at high missingness [7]	Information not in snippet	FPR control deteriorates with more missing data [7]
MI PCA (Elbow Method)	High	>0.05 at high missingness [7]	Information not in snippet	FPR control deteriorates with more missing data [7]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 3: Key Software Tools and Packages for Imputation in Transcriptomics

Tool/Package Name	Primary Function	Application Context	Key Features
RNAseqCovarImpute [7]	Multiple Imputation	Bulk RNA-seq (Observational Studies)	Integrates PCA with MI; compatible with limma-voom; R/Bioconductor package
rMisbeta [6]	Robust Imputation	Transcriptomics & Metabolomics	Uses minimum beta divergence; robust against outliers; R package
scVGAMF [45]	Dropout Imputation	scRNA-seq	Combines variational graph autoencoder and matrix factorization for linear/non-linear feature capture
cnnImpute [5]	Dropout Imputation	scRNA-seq	Uses convolutional neural networks (CNN) to recover missing values
stImpute [46]	Gene Expression Imputation	Spatial Transcriptomics	Uses protein language model (ESM-2) and graph neural networks for imputation from scRNA-seq reference
SWAM [47]	Meta-Imputation	Transcriptome-wide Association Studies (TWAS)	Combines multiple tissue-specific imputation models without individual-level data
PF 02367982	PF 02367982, CAS:913344-84-0, MF:C19H20N4O2, MW:336.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
PF-02413873	PF-02413873, CAS:936345-35-6, MF:C18H21N3O3S, MW:359.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Step-by-Step Application Protocol

Data Preprocessing and Normalization

Before applying RNAseqCovarImpute, raw RNA-seq count data must be normalized. The pipeline is designed to use log-counts per million (logCPM) as input.

• Quality Control: Filter out lowly expressed genes and poor-quality samples using standard packages like edgeR or DESeq2.
• Normalization: Apply the voom transformation from the limma package, which converts raw counts to logCPM values and estimates mean-variance relationships in preparation for linear modeling [7].

Running RNAseqCovarImpute

The following protocol assumes an expression matrix (expr_matrix) and a covariate data frame (covariate_data) with missing values encoded as NA.

Critical Considerations for Experimental Design

• True Biological Missingness: Before imputation, it is advisable to assess whether missing values in your dataset could represent True Biological Missingness (TBM). For genes suspected of TBM (e.g., highly expressed in some samples but completely absent in others), separate analysis is recommended to avoid imputation bias [2].
• Missingness Mechanism: While RNAseqCovarImpute is designed to handle data Missing at Random (MAR) effectively, its performance may be impacted if the data are Missing Not at Random (MNAR). Understanding the potential mechanisms behind your missing data is crucial for interpretation [12].
• Computational Resources: The MI PCA method is computationally efficient. However, for very large sample sizes (>1000) or when running extensive simulations, allocating sufficient memory and processing time is necessary.

The RNAseqCovarImpute pipeline provides a robust, statistically sound solution for a pervasive problem in observational transcriptomics. By bridging the gap between multiple imputation theory and the practical constraints of high-dimensional biology, it empowers researchers to derive more reliable and reproducible insights from their RNA-seq data, ultimately strengthening the conclusions drawn in studies of human health and disease.

Strategic Selection and Optimization of Missing Data Methods

In transcriptomics research, particularly with the advent of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), the pervasive issue of missing data presents a significant analytical challenge. The phenomenon of "dropout"—where expressed transcripts are not detected and recorded as zeros—is a prevalent issue characterized by a combination of technical and biological factors [5] [48]. Technical limitations, such as low RNA content in individual cells and biases during library preparation, can result in the underrepresentation of transcripts in the sequencing data. Biological heterogeneity among cells, where genes are stochastically expressed or selectively active in specific cell states, further contributes to dropout events [5]. The proper handling of these missing values is critical to delivering reliable estimates and decisions in high-stakes fields such as clinical research and drug development [49].

The impact of missing values on downstream analysis cannot be overstated. Ignoring these missing values can lead to biased downstream analysis and the obscuring of essential biological insights [5]. They can reduce prediction power and result in bias in downstream decision-making, which is particularly problematic in high-fidelity decision-making situations, such as those in healthcare and pharmaceutical development [49]. Within the context of a broader thesis on handling missing values in transcriptomics data research, this application note provides a structured decision framework to guide researchers in selecting appropriate imputation methods based on their specific data type and understanding of the missingness mechanism.

Understanding Missingness Mechanisms

Classical Categorization of Missing Data

As described by Little and Rubin, missing data can be categorized into three fundamental types based on the mechanism underlying the missingness [49]. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for selecting appropriate handling methods.

• Missing Completely at Random (MCAR): The probability of missingness is unrelated to both observed and unobserved data. This occurs when data points are missing randomly across all observations.
• Missing at Random (MAR): The probability of missingness may depend on observed data but not on unobserved data. For example, if the missingness in gene expression depends on the overall sequencing depth but not on the actual unmeasured expression values.
• Missing Not at Random (MNAR): The probability of missingness depends on unobserved data, including the missing values themselves. In scRNA-seq, dropout events where lowly expressed genes are more likely to be missing represent a typical MNAR scenario.

Special Considerations for Transcriptomics Data

In scRNA-seq data, zero counts dominate the transcriptomes, and these may be attributable to technology-specific artifacts, but recent analyses suggest that this phenomenon results primarily from low-expression and limited transcript capture [50]. Traditionally, zero-counts are seen as a barrier that must be resolved computationally, but they can also define highly variable features and identify cell types [50]. This dual nature of zeros in transcriptomics data—representing both technical artifacts and biological reality—complicates the determination of missingness mechanisms and necessitates specialized approaches.

A Decision Framework for Method Selection

The decision framework presented below integrates multiple factors for selecting appropriate missing data handling methods, with particular emphasis on data type and missingness mechanism. This structured approach guides researchers through critical decision points to identify suitable methodologies for their specific transcriptomics data scenario.

Method Selection by Data Type and Characteristics

Table 1: Imputation Method Selection Guide Based on Data Type and Characteristics

Data Type	Primary Missingness Mechanism	Recommended Method Categories	Example Algorithms	Key Considerations
scRNA-seq	MNAR (dropout events) [5] [50]	Deep learning; Graph neural networks; Hybrid approaches	cnnImpute [5], scVGAMF [45], scImpute [45]	Distinguish biological vs. technical zeros; Preserve cell heterogeneity; Avoid over-smoothing
Bulk RNA-seq	MCAR/MAR	Statistical methods; Matrix factorization	ALRA [45], SAVER [45], MICE [49]	Lower sparsity; Larger sample sizes; Traditional statistical assumptions often hold
Multi-omics	Block-wise missingness [40]	Joint modeling; Multi-view learning; Available-case approaches	Two-step algorithm [40], Integrated strategies [49]	Handle different data modalities; Maintain sample size; Account for inter-omics relationships
Time-series Transcriptomics	MAR (dependent on time)	Temporal models; RNN-based approaches	RNN models [49], Integrated imputation [49]	Capture temporal dependencies; Model dynamic processes

Quantitative Performance Comparison of scRNA-seq Imputation Methods

Table 2: Performance Comparison of scRNA-seq Imputation Methods on Benchmark Datasets

Method	Underlying Approach	Jurkat Dataset (PCC)	Grun Dataset (MSE)	Computational Complexity	Key Advantages
cnnImpute	Convolutional Neural Network [5]	Highest (P < 0.014) [5]	Outperformed most methods (P < 0.0039) [5]	Medium	Accurate expression recovery; Preserves cell clusters
scVGAMF	Variational Graph Autoencoder + Matrix Factorization [45]	N/A	N/A	High	Integrates linear and non-linear features; Improves downstream analysis
DeepImpute	Deep Neural Network [5]	High (2nd best) [5]	High performance [5]	Medium	Utilizes dropout technique; Fast training
DCA	Deep Count Autoencoder [5]	High [5]	Failed in Grun dataset [5]	High	Captures complex dependencies; Handles dropout events
MAGIC	Graph-based Diffusion [5] [45]	Lower performance [5]	Best in Grun dataset (PCC) [5]	Low	Preserves global patterns; Good for visualization
scImpute	Statistical Learning + Clustering [45]	Moderate [5]	Moderate [5]	Low	Gamma-Gaussian mixture model; Cell-type specific imputation
ALRA	Low-rank Approximation [45]	Lower [5]	Moderate [5]	Low	Preserves zeros; Adaptively thresholds

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementation of cnnImpute for scRNA-seq Data

Purpose: To accurately recover missing values in scRNA-seq data using convolutional neural networks while preserving the integrity of cell clusters [5].

Materials:

• Computing Environment: Python with TensorFlow/Keras or PyTorch
• Input Data: Raw count matrix from scRNA-seq experiment
• Software Requirements: cnnImpute package (available from original publication)
• Hardware: GPU recommended for large datasets (>10,000 cells)

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Remove cells with no expressed genes and genes not expressed in any cell [5].
  • Perform logarithmic normalization of the count matrix.
  • Apply dimensional reduction using t-SNE followed by clustering with ADPclust and k-means to form M cell clusters [5].

• Missing Probability Assessment:

  • Employ an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm with a gamma-normal distribution to compute dropout probabilities of expression values [5].
  • Set a threshold T (default: 0.5) where values with probability exceeding T are considered missing.

• CNN Model Construction:

  • Divide target genes into subsets (default: 512 genes per subset) [5].
  • Construct individual CNN models for each target gene subset.
  • For each target gene, use highly correlated genes as input for the CNN model.

• Model Training and Imputation:

  • Train CNN models using expression values with high likelihood of being missing.
  • Recover missing values through forward propagation of the trained network.
  • Reconstruct the complete expression matrix by combining all subsets.

Validation:

• Calculate mean square error (MSE) and Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) using masked data points [5].
• Evaluate preservation of biological features through clustering accuracy and differential expression analysis.

Protocol 2: Handling Block-Wise Missing Data in Multi-Omics

Purpose: To handle block-wise missing data in multi-omics integration without imputation using an available-case approach [40].

Materials:

• Software: R programming environment with bwm package [40]
• Input Data: Multiple omics datasets (e.g., transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) with overlapping samples
• Data Structure: Matrices for each omics type with consistent sample ordering

Procedure:

• Profile Identification:
  • For each sample, create a binary indicator vector I[1,...,S] where I(i) = 1 if the i-th data source is available, 0 otherwise [40].
  • Convert the binary vector to a decimal integer to assign a profile to each sample.
  • Group samples by their profiles to identify complete data blocks.

• Model Formulation:

  • For S data sources, formulate the model: y = ΣαiXiβi + ε, where Xi is the data matrix for source i, βi represents unknown parameters, and αi incorporates source-level weights [40].
  • Arrange the dataset into complete data blocks based on profile compatibility.

• Two-Step Optimization:

  • Step 1: Learn parameters β = (β1,...,βS) from available complete data blocks.
  • Step 2: Learn weights α = (α1,...,αS) that combine the models from different sources.
  • Apply regularization constraints to prevent overfitting.

• Prediction and Integration:

  • Generate predictions for each profile using the appropriate combination of sources.
  • Combine results across profiles to obtain complete multi-omics predictions.

Validation:

• Evaluate classification accuracy (73-81% for breast cancer subtypes) under various missingness scenarios [40].
• Assess correlation between true and predicted responses (75% for exposome dataset) [40].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Key Computational Tools for Missing Data Imputation

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Handling Missing Values in Transcriptomics

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Application	Key Features	Access
cnnImpute [5]	Python-based	scRNA-seq dropout imputation	CNN architecture; Gamma-normal distribution for missing probability	Available from publication
scVGAMF [45]	Python package	scRNA-seq data	Combines VGAE and NMF; Linear and non-linear feature integration	Available from publication
bwm R Package [40]	R package	Multi-omics block missing data	Available-case approach; Multi-class classification support	CRAN or GitHub
Galaxy Project [51]	Web platform	NGS analysis training	Free tutorials; Practice datasets; Step-by-step instructions	Publicly available
ColorBrewer 2.0 [52] [53]	Web tool	Visualization accessibility	Colorblind-safe palettes; Sequential/diverging/categorical schemes	Publicly available
PF-02575799	PF-02575799, CAS:863491-70-7, MF:C42H37FN4O4, MW:680.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
PF-3635659	PF-3635659|M3 Receptor Antagonist|Research Compound	PF-3635659 is an investigational muscarinic M3 receptor antagonist for COPD research. This product is for Research Use Only. Not for human use.	Bench Chemicals

Experimental Workflow for Comprehensive Missing Data Handling

Implementation Considerations and Best Practices

Data Quality Assessment and Preprocessing

Before applying any imputation method, thorough data quality assessment is crucial. Remove cells with no expressed genes and genes that are not expressed in any of the cells [5]. For scRNA-seq data, carefully consider the trade-offs between different protocols—full-length methods (e.g., Smart-Seq2) excel in detecting more expressed genes and isoform usage analysis, while 3' or 5' end counting protocols (e.g., Drop-Seq) enable higher throughput and lower cost per cell [48]. Normalize data appropriately, being cautious with methods designed for bulk RNA-sequencing as they can introduce errors into scRNA-seq data [48].

Method-Specific Optimization Strategies

For deep learning-based methods like cnnImpute and scVGAMF, hyperparameter tuning significantly impacts performance. The key parameters include the number of gene subsets (default 512 for cnnImpute) [5], network architecture depth, and training epochs. For graph-based methods, the construction of similarity matrices requires careful consideration—scVGAMF uses an integrated approach combining Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation, and Cosine similarity for cell-cell similarity, and Jaccard similarity for gene-gene relationships [45]. Always use cross-validation approaches tailored to missing data problems, such as masking observed values to assess imputation accuracy.

Validation and Interpretation

Robust validation is essential for ensuring imputation quality. Use multiple complementary approaches: technical validation using masked data points (calculating MSE and PCC with true expression values) [5], biological validation through downstream analyses (clustering accuracy, differential expression, trajectory inference) [45], and comparison with experimental validation when available (e.g., RNA FISH data) [5]. Be cautious of over-imputation, where true biological zeros are incorrectly imputed as non-zero values, potentially distorting biological interpretation [45]. Methods that distinguish between technical zeros (dropouts) and biological zeros (true absence of expression) generally provide more reliable results for biological interpretation.

Selecting appropriate methods for handling missing values in transcriptomics research requires careful consideration of data type, missingness mechanism, and analytical goals. The framework presented here provides a structured approach to this selection process, emphasizing that no single method is universally superior—the optimal choice depends on the specific characteristics of the dataset and research objectives. As the field evolves with advancements in AI and deep learning, the development of more adaptive, interpretable, and efficient imputation methods continues to enhance our ability to extract meaningful biological insights from incomplete transcriptomics data. By applying this decision framework and following the detailed protocols provided, researchers can make informed choices that improve the reliability and interpretability of their transcriptomics analyses.

Mitigating Batch Effects and Technical Confounders During Integration

The integration of transcriptomics data from multiple studies, technologies, or platforms is essential for robust biological discovery, yet it is fundamentally challenged by the presence of batch effects and technical confounders. These non-biological variations arise from differences in experimental conditions, sequencing protocols, sample preparation, and processing timelines, systematically obscuring true biological signals [54] [48]. The challenge intensifies when integrating datasets with substantial technical or biological differences, such as across species, between organoids and primary tissues, or from different sequencing technologies (e.g., single-cell versus single-nuclei RNA-seq) [54]. Furthermore, the pervasive issue of missing values and incomplete omic profiles in large-scale studies adds another layer of complexity, potentially exacerbating batch effects and hindering quantitative comparisons across independently acquired datasets [37] [40]. Within the context of a broader thesis on handling missing values in transcriptomics data research, this protocol provides comprehensive methodologies for distinguishing technical artifacts from biological variation and implementing effective correction strategies that account for data incompleteness.

Understanding the Nature and Impact of Batch Effects

Batch effects manifest as systematic technical biases introduced throughout the experimental workflow. In single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), these effects originate from multiple sources: cell isolation strategies (e.g., FACS versus droplet-based), transcript coverage protocols (full-length versus 3'- or 5'-end counting), amplification methods (PCR versus IVT), and sequencing platforms [48]. These technical variations create structured noise that can surpass biological differences in magnitude, particularly when integrating data across distinct "systems" such as different species or technologies [54]. The impact of these batch effects is particularly pronounced in transcriptomics studies involving multi-center collaborations, where differences in protocols, personnel, equipment, and timing inevitably introduce technical confounders [55].

Consequences of Uncorrected Batch Effects

Failure to adequately address batch effects leads to severe consequences for downstream analyses and biological interpretations. Uncorrected batch effects distort cell clustering, obscure rare cell populations, compromise differential expression analyses, and generate false biological conclusions [48] [56]. In clinical genomics, these errors can affect patient diagnoses, while in drug discovery, they can waste millions of research dollars by leading development down false paths [57]. The "garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO) principle is particularly relevant here, as even sophisticated computational methods cannot compensate for fundamentally flawed input data [57]. When batch effects coincide with biological groups of interest, they can produce spurious associations or mask true biological signals, ultimately undermining the validity of research findings.

Computational Methods for Batch Effect Correction

Multiple computational strategies have been developed to address batch effects in transcriptomics data, each with distinct theoretical foundations and implementation considerations. These methods can be broadly categorized into non-procedural approaches that use direct statistical modeling and procedural methods that employ multi-step computational workflows with iterative alignment [56]. The selection of an appropriate method depends on data characteristics, including the severity of batch effects, data completeness, sample size, and the specific biological questions under investigation.

Table 1: Categories of Batch Effect Correction Methods

Category	Theoretical Basis	Representative Methods	Best Use Cases
Non-procedural	Statistical modeling of additive/multiplicative biases	ComBat, Limma [37] [56]	Simple batch structures; complete datasets
Procedural with Anchoring	Mutual nearest neighbors (MNNs), canonical correlation analysis	Seurat v3, FastMNN, Scanorama, BBKNN [55] [56]	Complex batch structures; cross-platform integration
Deep Learning-based	Variational autoencoders (VAEs), neural networks	scGen, scVI, MMD-ResNet, sysVI [54] [55] [56]	Large-scale atlases; substantial technical variation
Reference-based	Hierarchical integration with user-defined references	BERT, COCONUT [37]	Incomplete omic profiles; severely imbalanced designs
Federated Learning	Secure multi-party computation; parameter averaging	FedscGen [55]	Privacy-sensitive multi-center studies

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Evaluating the performance of batch effect correction methods requires multiple metrics assessing both batch mixing and biological preservation. No single metric comprehensively captures all aspects of integration quality, thus requiring a multi-faceted evaluation approach.

Table 2: Performance Metrics for Batch Effect Correction Methods

Method	Batch Mixing (iLISI/ASW Batch)	Biological Preservation (NMI/ASW Cell Type)	Data Retention	Runtime Efficiency
sysVI (VAMP+CYC)	High [54]	High [54]	Moderate	Moderate
BERT	High (ASW improvement up to 2×) [37]	High (ASW label preservation) [37]	High (retains all numeric values) [37]	High (11× faster than HarmonizR) [37]
FedscGen	Competitive with scGen [55]	Competitive with scGen (NMI, GC, ILF1) [55]	Moderate	Moderate (federated overhead)
Order-preserving Method	High (improved LISI) [56]	High (maintained inter-gene correlation) [56]	High	Moderate
HarmonizR	Moderate [37]	Moderate [37]	Low (27-88% data loss) [37]	Low

Diagram 1: Batch effect correction workflow. The decision pathway begins with data assessment and guides method selection based on data completeness and research constraints.

Specialized Protocols for Challenging Scenarios

Handling Block-Wise Missing Data with BERT

The Batch-Effect Reduction Trees (BERT) algorithm provides a robust solution for integrating incomplete omic profiles, a common challenge in large-scale transcriptomics studies where certain features may be completely missing from specific batches or studies.

Experimental Protocol:

• Input Preparation: Format data as a matrix (features × samples) with clearly defined batch identifiers and optional categorical covariates. Accepts data.frame or SummarizedExperiment objects [37].
• Quality Control: Compute pre-integration quality metrics including Average Silhouette Width (ASW) for batches and biological conditions using Equation 1: ASW = ∑(b_i - a_i)/max(a_i, b_i) where ai and bi represent mean intra-cluster and nearest-cluster distances, respectively [37].
• Tree Construction: Decompose the integration task into a binary tree structure where pairs of batches are recursively integrated. Process independent sub-trees in parallel using user-defined processes (parameter P) [37].
• Pairwise Correction: For each batch pair at tree nodes:
  • Apply ComBat or limma to features with sufficient data (≥2 values per batch)
  • Propagate features with values in only one batch without modification
  • Incorporate user-defined covariates in design matrices to preserve biological variation [37]
• Iterative Integration: Process intermediate batches with iteratively reduced parallelism (parameter R) until reaching a specified number of batches (parameter S) for final sequential integration [37].
• Output and Validation: Return integrated data in original input format with post-integration quality metrics and execution time statistics.

Implementation Considerations:

• BERT retains all numeric values, unlike HarmonizR which can lose 27-88% of data through its unique removal approach [37]
• Runtime is significantly faster than HarmonizR (11× improvement) with limma providing approximately 13% faster execution than ComBat [37]
• Effectively handles severely imbalanced or sparsely distributed conditions through reference sample designation

Addressing Substantial Batch Effects with sysVI

For challenging integration scenarios with substantial batch effects across systems (e.g., cross-species, organoid-tissue, or different technologies), sysVI provides enhanced performance through VampPrior and cycle-consistency constraints.

Experimental Protocol:

• Data Preprocessing: Normalize counts per cell, identify highly variable genes, and perform log transformation. Regress out uninteresting sources of variation (mitochondrial content, cell cycle) if applicable [54].
• Model Configuration: Implement conditional Variational Autoencoder (cVAE) architecture with:
  • VampPrior (multimodal variational mixture of posteriors) as prior for latent space to enhance biological preservation
  • Cycle-consistency constraints to improve batch correction without sacrificing biological signals [54]
• Training Procedure:
  • Train on substantial batch effect use cases (cross-species, organoid-tissue, single-cell/single-nuclei)
  • Monitor both batch correction (iLISI) and biological preservation (NMI) metrics during training
  • Avoid excessive KL divergence regularization that removes both biological and technical variation non-specifically [54]
• Latent Space Extraction: Obtain integrated cell embeddings from the trained model for downstream analyses.
• Batch Correction: Transfer cells to a common batch-effect-corrected space while preserving within-system biological variation.

Advantages Over Alternatives:

• Overcomes limitations of standard cVAE methods which struggle with substantial batch effects
• Avoids adversarial learning approaches that may remove biological signals along with technical variation [54]
• Particularly effective for large-scale "atlas" projects combining datasets with substantial technical and biological variation

Privacy-Preserving Integration with FedscGen

For multi-center studies where data sharing is restricted by privacy regulations (e.g., GDPR), FedscGen enables federated batch effect correction without centralizing sensitive transcriptomics data.

Experimental Protocol:

• Initialization:
  • Coordinator deploys common VAE model architecture with standardized initial parameters to all clients
  • Each participating institution (client) maintains local control of scRNA-seq data [55]
• Federated Training:
  • Clients train local models for e epochs (typically 100 epochs with learning rate 0.001)
  • Trained parameters (not raw data) are sent to coordinator
  • Coordinator aggregates parameters using Federated Averaging (FedAvg): θ_r ← ∑(N_c · θ_c) where θr is global weights in round r, Nc is sample count for client c [55]
  • Updated global model broadcast to all clients
  • Repeat for multiple communication rounds with early stopping implementation [55]
• Federated δ-vector Estimation and Correction:
  • Identify dominant batches for shared cell types
  • Perform local correction based on securely aggregated latent representations using Secure MultiParty Computation (SMPC) [55]
• Validation:
  • Assess batch mixing using kBET acceptance rate, ASW, and EBM
  • Evaluate biological preservation with LISI, ILF1, and GC metrics
  • Compare performance to centralized scGen (Δm = FedscGenm - scGen_m) [55]

Order-Preserving Correction for Regulatory Network Analysis

When preserving gene-gene correlation structures is critical for downstream regulatory network analysis, order-preserving methods maintain relative expression rankings across batches.

Experimental Protocol:

• Initial Clustering: Perform initial cell clustering using preferred algorithm (e.g., Louvain, Leiden) to identify cell types and states [56].
• Similarity Assessment: Utilize intra-batch and inter-batch nearest neighbor information to evaluate cluster similarities, enabling intra-batch merging and inter-batch matching of similar clusters [56].
• Distribution Alignment: Calculate distribution distance between reference and query batches using weighted Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) as loss function [56].
• Monotonic Network Correction:
  • Implement global or partial monotonic deep learning network to ensure intra-gene order-preserving feature
  • Minimize MMD loss while constraining network to preserve expression rankings [56]
• Validation of Order Preservation:
  • Calculate Spearman correlation coefficients for gene expression rankings before and after correction
  • Assess inter-gene correlation preservation using RMSE, Pearson correlation, and Kendall correlation metrics
  • Evaluate differential expression consistency within batches post-correction [56]

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Batch Effect Correction

Resource	Type	Function	Implementation Considerations
BERT	R Package	Integration of incomplete omic profiles with block-wise missingness	Bioconductor availability; supports data.frame and SummarizedExperiment inputs [37]
sysVI	Python Tool	Integration of datasets with substantial batch effects across systems	Part of scvi-tools package; requires cVAE architecture expertise [54]
FedscGen	FeatureCloud App	Privacy-preserving federated batch effect correction	SMPC implementation for secure aggregation; compatible with scGen framework [55]
Order-preserving Framework	Python Implementation	Batch correction maintaining gene expression rankings	Monotonic network architecture; weighted MMD loss function [56]
RECODE Platform	Computational Tool	Simultaneous technical and batch noise reduction	Extends to diverse single-cell modalities (Hi-C, spatial transcriptomics) [58]
HarmonizR	R Package	Imputation-free data integration for incomplete profiles	Higher data loss than BERT; blocking strategies to improve runtime [37]

Diagram 2: Method selection framework. The pathway guides researchers to appropriate correction methods based on data characteristics and analytical priorities, with evaluation metrics for validation.

Effective mitigation of batch effects and technical confounders is essential for robust integration of transcriptomics data, particularly as the field moves toward larger-scale atlas projects and multi-study meta-analyses. The methods presented here address diverse challenges: BERT efficiently handles block-wise missing data common in large-scale integrative analyses; sysVI tackles substantial batch effects across biologically diverse systems; FedscGen enables privacy-preserving integration for multi-center studies; and order-preserving methods maintain critical gene-gene correlations for regulatory network analysis. As single-cell technologies continue to evolve and multi-omic integration becomes standard practice, further development of batch effect correction methods that simultaneously address data incompleteness, privacy concerns, and biological fidelity will be crucial. The connection to missing value research underscores the importance of developing integrated solutions that handle both technical artifacts and data incompleteness within unified frameworks, ultimately enhancing the reliability and reproducibility of transcriptomics research.

In transcriptomics research, the pervasive challenge of missing data, often termed "dropouts," presents a significant obstacle to accurate biological interpretation. These dropouts arise from both technical limitations, such as low mRNA capture efficiency, and biological phenomena, including genes that are stochastically expressed or completely silent in certain cell populations [3] [2]. While numerous imputation methods have been developed to address this issue, they frequently impose a high computational cost, creating a critical trade-off between data accuracy and processing feasibility, especially as dataset sizes grow into the millions of cells [20] [59]. This application note provides a structured framework for researchers to navigate this balance, offering benchmarked performance data, detailed experimental protocols, and practical guidance for selecting and implementing imputation strategies that align with specific research goals and computational constraints. The focus is on enabling robust downstream analyses—such as cell type identification, trajectory inference, and differential expression—without prohibitive computational overhead.

Performance Benchmarking of Selected Imputation Methods

Selecting an appropriate imputation method requires a clear understanding of its performance profile. The following table summarizes key characteristics of several contemporary methods, highlighting the inherent trade-offs between computational efficiency and imputation accuracy.

Table 1: Benchmarking of Single-Cell Transcriptomics Imputation Methods

Method	Core Algorithm	Key Strength	Computational Efficiency	Reported Impact on Downstream Analysis
SmartImpute [20]	Targeted Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)	Focuses on predefined marker genes; preserves biological zeros.	High (Scales to >1 million cells)	Improves cell type annotation, clustering, and trajectory inference.
cnnImpute [5]	Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	Accurate missing value recovery; maintains cell cluster integrity.	Moderate to High	Superior Pearson correlation with true expression in benchmarks.
scGPT [59]	Transformer-based Foundation Model	High performance on multiple tasks (annotation, perturbation).	Lower (Requires significant resources for full training)	Excels in gene function prediction and cell type annotation.
DCA [20]	Denoising Autoencoder	Models zero-inflated negative binomial noise.	Moderate	Improves downstream analyses but can be computationally expensive.
Linear Interpolation [60]	Linear Regression	Simple, fast, and interpretable.	Very High	Can outperform complex methods in time-series data with NMAR.

The benchmarks indicate that no single method is universally superior. The choice depends on the specific analytical goal. For large-scale studies focused on known biology, a targeted approach like SmartImpute offers an excellent balance [20]. For maximum imputation accuracy on smaller datasets, cnnImpute is a strong contender [5]. In time-series contexts or when computational resources are severely limited, simple methods like Linear Interpolation can be surprisingly effective [60]. Foundation models like scGPT and CellFM represent the cutting edge but require substantial infrastructure for optimal use [59].

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Methods

Protocol 1: Targeted Imputation with SmartImpute

This protocol is designed for efficient, biologically focused imputation using a predefined set of marker genes, ideal for projects where cellular heterogeneity is well-characterized.

I. Preprocessing and Input Preparation

• Data Input: Begin with a raw or normalized cell-by-gene count matrix (e.g., from CellRanger or similar pipeline).
• Quality Control: Filter out low-quality cells and genes using standard tools (e.g., Scanpy or Seurat). Remove cells with high mitochondrial gene percentages and genes expressed in an extremely low number of cells.
• Marker Gene Panel Selection:
  • Option A (Custom Panel): Utilize the integrated GPT-based function (tpGPT R package) to generate a context-aware marker gene list specific to your tissue or disease of interest [20].
  • Option B (Predefined Panel): Use a established panel, such as the BD Rhapsody Immune Response Targeted Panel (approx. 580 genes), as a starting point [20].
• Data Partitioning: The algorithm automatically subsets the full expression matrix to focus on the selected marker gene panel for imputation, drastically reducing computational load.

II. Core Imputation Execution

• Model Setup: Initialize the modified Generative Adversarial Imputation Network (GAIN). The generator learns to impute missing values, while the multi-task discriminator distinguishes between observed and imputed values, specifically preserving true biological zeros [20].
• Training: Train the model using the prepared marker gene matrix. The incorporation of a proportion of non-target genes during training ensures robust generalizability without significant performance loss.
• Imputation: Execute the trained model to generate the final imputed matrix, which contains filled-in values for technical dropouts within the marker gene panel while leaving other genes and true biological zeros largely unaltered.

III. Post-processing and Validation

• Integration: The imputed marker gene matrix can be used for downstream analysis or reintegrated with the non-imputed genes for a complete dataset.
• Validation: Evaluate performance using downstream tasks:
  • Perform UMAP/t-SNE visualization and clustering to check for improved separation of known cell types.
  • Use cell type annotation tools (e.g., SingleR) to assess annotation accuracy against a gold-standard reference [20].
  • Generate heatmaps of key marker genes to visually confirm enhanced and biologically consistent expression patterns.

Protocol 2: Comprehensive Imputation with cnnImpute

This protocol uses a convolutional neural network to recover missing values based on co-expression patterns with correlated genes, suitable for discovery-focused studies.

I. Data Preprocessing and Masking

• Initial Filtering: Remove cells with no expressed genes and genes not expressed in any cell [5].
• Clustering for Context: Perform dimensionality reduction (e.g., t-SNE) followed by clustering (e.g., ADPclust, k-means) to group cells into M clusters. This allows for context-specific imputation.
• Dropout Probability Estimation: Apply an Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm with a gamma-normal mixture model to calculate the probability of each zero being a technical dropout [5].
• Target Identification: Define a threshold T (default = 0.5) for dropout probability. Genes with values exceeding T in any cell are flagged as targets for imputation.

II. CNN Model Training and Execution

• Input Gene Selection: For each target gene, identify a set of highly correlated genes to serve as the input features for the CNN model.
• Model Architecture: Construct a CNN model comprising:
  • Input Layer: Takes the expression vector of correlated genes.
  • Convolutional Layers: Multiple layers with ReLU activation to learn local expression patterns and hierarchical features.
  • Fully Connected Layers: Layers that map learned features to the final output.
  • Output Layer: Produces the imputed expression value for the target gene.
• Training: Train the CNN model to minimize the difference between predicted and actual expression for non-missing values. Target genes are processed in subsets (default N=512) for robustness and speed [5].

III. Result Integration and Benchmarking

• Application: Apply the trained CNN models to recover the missing values for all target genes across all cells.
• Benchmarking (Optional): To quantitatively assess accuracy, mask a portion (e.g., 10%) of non-zero expression values before imputation. Calculate metrics like Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) and Mean Square Error (MSE) between the imputed and true values [5].

Visual Guide to Imputation Workflows

Workflow Logic and Decision Pathway

The following diagram outlines the logical decision process for selecting and applying an appropriate imputation strategy based on research objectives and dataset properties.

SmartImpute's Multi-Task GAN Architecture

The core of SmartImpute's efficiency and accuracy lies in its modified Generative Adversarial Network architecture, which uses a multi-task discriminator to preserve biological zeros.

Successful implementation of computational protocols relies on access to specific software tools, reference data, and computational hardware.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Transcriptomics Imputation

Item Name	Type	Function / Application	Example / Note
Predefined Marker Panels	Biological Reference	Provides a curated gene set for targeted imputation, improving efficiency and biological relevance.	BD Rhapsody Immune Response Panel (Human); can be customized via tpGPT [20].
Cell Type Atlas Reference	Data Resource	Serves as a gold-standard for validating imputation quality via cell type annotation accuracy.	BLUEPRINT / ImmGen reference; used with SingleR for annotation post-imputation [20].
Standardized Processing Pipeline	Software Tool	Ensures consistent data preprocessing and quality control, a critical precursor to imputation.	Scanpy (Python) or Seurat (R) packages for filtering, normalization, and clustering.
Benchmarked Imputation Software	Software Tool	Provides validated algorithms for missing data recovery.	SmartImpute (GitHub), cnnImpute, DCA, scGPT, available as R/Python packages.
High-Performance Computing (HPC)	Hardware	Enables the processing of large-scale datasets (millions of cells) within a feasible timeframe.	Cluster/cloud computing with GPUs is essential for foundation models and large datasets [59].

In transcriptomics research, the pervasive issue of missing data, driven by technical dropouts and biological stochasticity, presents a significant analytical challenge. A primary strategy to address this is data imputation. However, the improper application of imputation methods can introduce severe artifacts, including over-imputation, excessive data smoothing, and the generation of false biological signals. These pitfalls can profoundly distort downstream analyses, such as the identification of cell populations, trajectory inference, and the detection of differentially expressed genes, ultimately leading to erroneous biological conclusions [61]. This document outlines the critical pitfalls in handling missing values in transcriptomics data and provides validated protocols to mitigate them, ensuring the integrity of scientific findings in research and drug development.

The performance and potential drawbacks of imputation methods can be quantitatively assessed using various metrics. The following table summarizes key pitfalls and the demonstrated performance of a method specifically designed to avoid them.

Table 1: Pitfalls of Imputation Methods and Performance of PbImpute

Pitfall Category	Specific Risks and Consequences	PbImpute Performance Metric
Over-imputation	Excessive modification of true zero expressions; masking of genuine biological variability; distortion of underlying biological signals [61].	Achieves balance via static and dynamic repair modules to minimize over-imputation effects [61].
Under-imputation	Insufficient recovery of dropout events; failure to recover biologically relevant signals in sparse data sets; persistence of zeros that should have non-zero values [61].	Multi-stage approach addresses residual dropout zeros, enhancing recovery [61].
False Signal Introduction	Inflation of gene-gene correlations, obscuring true network structures; potential decrease in gene network reconstruction performance [62].	Improves gene-gene and cell-cell correlation structures, enhancing downstream analysis accuracy [61].
Discrimination Accuracy	Inability to distinguish technical dropouts from true biological zeros, introducing biases [61].	Superior zero-discrimination (F1 Score = 0.88 at 83% dropout rate) [61].
Impact on Clustering	Poor cell population identification due to distorted transcriptome interpretations [61].	Enhances clustering resolution (Adjusted Rand Index = 0.78 on PBMC data) [61].

Experimental Protocols for Balanced Imputation

This section provides a detailed methodology for implementing a precisely balanced imputation strategy, as exemplified by the PbImpute framework, to avoid major pitfalls.

Protocol: Multi-stage Balanced Imputation with PbImpute

Principle: To achieve optimal equilibrium between dropout recovery and biological zero preservation in scRNA-seq data by combining zero-inflated modeling with repair mechanisms [61].

Applications: scRNA-seq data preprocessing before downstream analyses like clustering, differential expression, and trajectory inference.

Reagents and Materials:

• Input Data: A raw count matrix from any scRNA-seq technology (e.g., 10X Genomics, Drop-seq).
• Software: R or Python environment with PbImpute installed from https://github.com/WyBioTeam/PbImpute [61].
• Computational Resources: Standard desktop computer for small datasets; high-performance computing cluster recommended for large-scale data.

Procedure:

• Initial ZINB Modeling and Imputation:
  • Action: Model the gene expression data using a Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) distribution.
  • Parameters: Optimize ZINB parameters to probabilistically discriminate between technical dropouts and true biological zeros.
  • Output: An initial, partially imputed expression matrix.

• Static Repair:

  • Action: Apply a uniquely designed static repair algorithm to the initially imputed matrix.
  • Purpose: To enhance data fidelity and mitigate potential biases introduced during the first imputation step, thus countering initial over-imputation.

• Refining Dropout Identification:

  • Action: Perform a secondary identification of residual dropout zeros.
  • Parameters: Utilize gene expression frequency and partition-specific coefficient of variation metrics to refine the list of zeros requiring imputation.

• Graph-Embedding Neural Network Imputation:

  • Action: Impute the zeros identified in the previous step using a graph-embedding neural network (node2vec).
  • Purpose: To capture complex, non-linear relationships between genes and cells for accurate imputation of remaining dropouts.

• Dynamic Repair:

  • Action: Implement a tailored dynamic repair process on the final imputed matrix.
  • Purpose: To prevent over-imputation by fine-tuning the results and ensuring that true biological zeros are preserved [61].

Troubleshooting:

• High Computational Time: For very large datasets, consider down-sampling the data or utilizing high-performance computing resources.
• Persistent Data Distortion: Conduct ablation studies (as performed in the original publication) to confirm the contribution of both imputation and repair modules to the final result. Validate imputation results with independent experimental data if available.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the sequential steps of this protocol:

Protocol: Imputation for Spatial Transcriptomics via Style Transfer

Principle: Leverage rich scRNA-seq data to impute unmeasured gene expressions in Spatial Transcriptomics (ST) data by disentangling shared biological content from platform-specific technical styles [63] [64].

Applications: Enhancing ST data from platforms like 10x Visium, Slide-seq, NanoString CosMx, and MERSCOPE for improved gene coverage and accuracy in downstream spatial analysis.

Reagents and Materials:

• Input Data:
  • ST data (count matrix and spatial coordinates).
  • scRNA-seq data from a biologically matched sample.
• Software: SpaIM software installed from https://github.com/QSong-github/SpaIM [63].

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Normalize and log-transform both the ST and scRNA-seq count matrices. Identify highly variable genes common to both datasets.
• Model Training:
  • Input: The paired ST and scRNA-seq data.
  • Process: Co-train the ST autoencoder and ST generator. The model learns to:
    • Disentangle ST data into data-agnostic content (shared biology) and data-specific style (technical noise).
    • Extract content from scRNA-seq data and transfer the learned ST style to it.
• Imputation of Unmeasured Genes:
  • Action: Use the trained ST generator as a standalone model.
  • Input: scRNA-seq data for genes not measured in the ST platform.
  • Output: Accurately imputed spatial expression patterns for the unmeasured genes, achieving high correlation with ground truth (e.g., PCC: 0.70 ± 0.02 reported in breast cancer data) [63].

Troubleshooting:

• Poor Alignment Between Modalities: Ensure the scRNA-seq and ST data are from biologically comparable samples. Perform preliminary integration using methods like Seurat to check alignment.
• Low Imputation Accuracy: Adjust the hyperparameters of the SpaIM model, such as the dimensions of the content and style embeddings, and the weights of the joint loss function.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Transcriptomics Imputation

Item Name	Type/Platform	Primary Function in Imputation
PbImpute	Computational Software (R/Python)	A multi-stage imputation method designed to precisely balance dropout recovery with biological zero preservation, minimizing over-imputation [61].
SpaIM	Computational Software (Python)	A style transfer learning model that uses scRNA-seq data to impute unmeasured genes in spatial transcriptomics data, improving gene coverage [63] [64].
SpatialQC	Quality Control Pipeline (Python)	A one-stop quality control pipeline for spatial transcriptomics data that detects spatial anomalies in data quality and performs filtering to ensure reliable input for imputation [65].
SCTK-QC Pipeline	Quality Control Pipeline (R)	Generates comprehensive QC metrics for scRNA-seq data, including empty droplet detection, doublet prediction, and ambient RNA estimation, which are critical for informing imputation [66].
ZINB Model	Statistical Model	Serves as the foundational statistical framework in several methods (e.g., PbImpute, DCA) for distinguishing technical dropouts (false zeros) from true biological absences [61].
Node2vec	Graph-embedding Algorithm	Used within advanced imputation methods (e.g., GE-Impute, PbImpute) to learn complex cell-cell relationships in a low-dimensional space for accurate data recovery [61].
PF-04279405	PF-04279405, CAS:955881-01-3, MF:C25H25FN4O4, MW:464.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
(Rac)-PF-998425	(Rac)-PF-998425, CAS:1076225-27-8, MF:C14H14F3NO, MW:269.26 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Workflow for Mitigating Pitfalls in Transcriptomics Analysis

The following diagram outlines a comprehensive workflow that integrates quality control, informed imputation choices, and rigorous validation to avoid common pitfalls throughout the transcriptomics data analysis process.

Benchmarking and Validating Method Performance for Reliable Results

In the field of transcriptomics research, the presence of missing values and technical noise in high-dimensional data poses a significant challenge for downstream biological analysis. Effectively addressing this issue requires robust computational methods and, crucially, a standardized set of metrics to evaluate their performance. Among the multitude of available validation statistics, three have emerged as fundamental for assessing the success of data imputation and integration: Mean Squared Error (MSE), Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC), and Silhouette Width. These metrics provide complementary views on the accuracy, biological fidelity, and structural preservation of processed transcriptomic data. This Application Note details the theoretical basis, practical application, and interpretation of these key metrics within the context of transcriptomics research, providing standardized protocols for their use in benchmarking studies and method validation.

The Metric Trinity: Definitions and Biological Significance

The following table summarizes the core characteristics, strengths, and limitations of the three key metrics.

Table 1: Overview of Key Validation Metrics in Transcriptomics

Metric	Full Name	Measurement Goal	Optimal Value	Key Strength	Primary Limitation
MSE	Mean Squared Error	Accuracy of imputed expression values	0	Punishes large errors severely; easily interpretable [5]	Scale-dependent; lacks context on biological pattern preservation
PCC	Pearson Correlation Coefficient	Linear relationship between imputed and true expression	+1 or -1	Intuitive; measures pattern conservation beyond magnitude [5] [67]	Insensitive to constant scaling or translation; only captures linear relationships
Silhouette Width	(No expansion)	Preservation of biological cluster structure after processing	+1	Directly assesses if batch effects are removed without erasing true biology [68] [69]	Relies on pre-defined cell labels or clusters, which may be uncertain

Mean Squared Error (MSE)

MSE quantifies the average squared difference between the imputed or predicted values and the original ground truth values. In transcriptomics, it is frequently used to evaluate the accuracy of imputation methods in recovering missing expression values or of models predicting gene expression from sequences [70] [5]. A lower MSE indicates higher imputation accuracy. For instance, in a benchmark of imputation methods, cnnImpute achieved the lowest MSE, demonstrating its superior performance in accurately recovering masked expression values [5]. Similarly, models like UNICORN are evaluated based on their MSE to gauge their precision in predicting cell-type-specific gene expression from biological sequences [70].

Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC)

The PCC measures the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two sets of data. In evaluating transcriptomic data, it is crucial for assessing whether the patterns of gene expression are preserved after imputation or integration, which is often more biologically relevant than exact value matching. A PCC close to +1 indicates a strong positive linear relationship, meaning the relative expression levels across genes or cells are well conserved. For example, cnnImpute also ranked highly in benchmarks based on PCC, showing it successfully maintains the covariance structure of the data [5]. PCC is also a standard metric for evaluating drug response prediction models, where it measures the correlation between predicted and observed ex vivo drug sensitivity [67].

Silhouette Width

Silhouette Width is a metric for evaluating the quality of data clustering. It measures how similar an object is to its own cluster (cohesion) compared to other clusters (separation). The score ranges from -1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the object is well-matched to its own cluster and poorly-matched to neighboring clusters. In single-cell genomics, this metric is vital for benchmarking batch integration methods. A successful method should produce embeddings where cells of the same type cluster together (high biological conservation) regardless of their technical batch origin (low batch effect). Studies rigorously evaluate methods like scVI, Harmony, and foundation models (scGPT, Geneformer) using Silhouette Width to ensure that biological cluster structure is preserved after removing technical artifacts [68] [69].

Experimental Protocols for Metric Evaluation

This section provides detailed methodologies for conducting benchmark studies that utilize these key metrics to evaluate transcriptomic data processing tools.

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Imputation Methods using MSE and PCC

Objective: To evaluate the performance of missing value imputation methods (e.g., cnnImpute, DCA, scVI) on single-cell RNA-sequencing data using MSE and PCC.

Materials:

• Dataset: A well-annotated scRNA-seq dataset (e.g., human Jurkat cells or mouse data from Grün et al. [5]).
• Software: R or Python environment with the imputation methods installed.
• Computing Resource: A high-performance computing node is recommended for large datasets.

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Filter out cells with no expressed genes and genes that are not expressed in any cell. Normalize the data according to standard practices for the chosen dataset.
• Create Ground Truth Mask: Randomly select a portion (e.g., 10%) of the non-zero expression values in the filtered matrix. Replace these values with zeros to artificially create a missing value matrix. Retain the original values as the ground truth for validation. Repeat this process with different random seeds to ensure robustness [5].
• Run Imputation Methods: Apply each imputation method to the masked matrix to generate a completed matrix.
• Calculate Metrics:
  • Extract the set of artificially masked data points from the imputed matrix and the corresponding ground truth values.
  • MSE Calculation: Compute the average of the squared differences between the imputed values (( \hat{y}i )) and the true values (( yi )) for all ( N ) masked points. ( MSE = \frac{1}{N}\sum{i=1}^{N}(yi - \hat{y}_i)^2 )
  • PCC Calculation: Calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient between the vector of imputed values and the vector of true values for the masked points.
• Result Interpretation: The method with the lowest MSE and highest PCC demonstrates the best performance in accurately recovering missing expression values while preserving expression patterns.

Protocol 2: Evaluating Data Integration using Silhouette Width

Objective: To assess the ability of data integration methods (e.g., scVI, Harmony, scGPT) to remove batch effects while preserving biological variation using Silhouette Width.

Materials:

• Dataset: A multi-batch scRNA-seq dataset with known cell-type labels and batch labels (e.g., Pancreas benchmark dataset [68]).
• Software: R or Python with appropriate integration tools and metric calculation packages (e.g., scikit-learn).

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Perform standard quality control and normalization on the raw count data from all batches.
• Apply Integration Methods: Run each integration method to obtain a low-dimensional embedding of the cells, ideally with batch effects corrected.
• Calculate Silhouette Width:
  • Using the integrated embedding, calculate the Silhouette Width for each cell. Two separate calculations are critical:
    • Biological Conservation (Avg. BIO): Compute the Silhouette Width using the cell-type labels. A high average score indicates that cells of the same type are embedded close together, confirming biological structure is preserved [68] [69].
    • Batch Mixing: Compute the Silhouette Width using the batch labels. A score close to 0 or negative indicates that cells from different batches are well-mixed, signifying successful batch effect removal. A positive score suggests persistent batch effects.
• Result Interpretation: A superior integration method will yield a high average Silhouette Width for cell-type labels and a low score for batch labels. For example, in benchmark studies, methods like scVI and Harmony consistently outperform others in this dual metric evaluation [68].

Visualizing the Validation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for applying these metrics in a transcriptomics method benchmarking study, from data input to final evaluation.

The following table lists key computational tools and data resources frequently employed in studies that rely on MSE, PCC, and Silhouette Width for validation.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Validation	Relevant Context
scIB / scIB-E Metrics [69]	Software Suite	Provides standardized benchmarking pipeline, including Silhouette Width calculations.	Evaluating data integration and batch correction methods.
cnnImpute [5]	Imputation Algorithm	A high-performing method used as a benchmark; validated using MSE and PCC.	Recovering missing values in scRNA-seq data.
scVI / scANVI [69] [71]	Integration Algorithm	A deep-learning framework for data integration, often a top performer in silhouette-based benchmarks.	Integrating single-cell data from multiple batches.
VISTA [72]	Imputation Algorithm	A method for predicting unmeasured genes in spatial transcriptomics, evaluated with correlation metrics.	Enhancing spatially resolved transcriptomic data.
ENVI [73]	Spatial Inference Algorithm	Integrates scRNA-seq and spatial data; performance is quantified using spatial pattern similarity and correlation.	Imputing gene expression and inferring spatial context.
BeatAML Dataset [67]	Biological Dataset	A resource with molecular and clinical data used to build predictive models validated with Pearson correlation.	Predicting drug sensitivity in acute myeloid leukemia.
Benchmarking Datasets (e.g., Jurkat, Pancreas) [68] [5]	Biological Dataset	Curated, well-annotated datasets serving as standard ground truth for calculating MSE, PCC, and Silhouette Width.	Providing a reliable foundation for method comparison.

The trinity of MSE, Pearson Correlation, and Silhouette Width provides a robust, multi-faceted framework for validating computational methods in transcriptomics. While MSE grounds the evaluation in numerical accuracy, PCC ensures the preservation of critical biological patterns, and Silhouette Width guarantees that the inherent and meaningful structure of the data is maintained. By adhering to the standardized protocols and utilizing the toolkit outlined in this document, researchers and drug development professionals can conduct rigorous, comparable, and insightful evaluations, thereby driving the development of more reliable and effective analytical tools for precision medicine.

Missing data presents a pervasive and critical challenge in transcriptomic research, with the potential to skew biological interpretations, reduce statistical power, and compromise the validity of downstream analyses. In microarray data, missing values typically affect 1-10% of data points, impacting up to 95% of genes [25]. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data exhibits even more pronounced sparsity, where an excess of zero values—arising from both biological and technical factors (dropouts)—can dominate the expression matrix [3]. The handling of these missing values is not merely a technical preprocessing step but a fundamental determinant of analytical success. Methods range from simple complete-case analysis (which discards valuable information) to sophisticated imputation algorithms designed to estimate missing values based on patterns within the dataset. The selection of an appropriate method depends heavily on the transcriptomic technology (microarray, bulk RNA-seq, or scRNA-seq), the underlying missingness mechanism (MCAR, MAR, or MNAR), and the specific analytical goals. This application note provides a structured, evidence-based comparison of leading imputation methods, detailing their performance characteristics and offering structured protocols for their implementation in research workflows.

Method Performance Across Transcriptomic Technologies

The performance of imputation methods varies significantly across different data types. Below we summarize benchmark results for microarray, bulk RNA-seq, and single-cell RNA-seq technologies.

Microarray Data Imputation

Early and comprehensive benchmarks for microarray data have established strong baselines for method performance. A large-scale evaluation involving over 6,000,000 simulations across five biological datasets assessed 12 different imputation methods [74].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Leading Microarray Imputation Methods

Method	Underlying Algorithm	Reported RMSE	Key Strengths	Noted Limitations
EM_array [74]	Expectation-Maximization	Low (0.97 correlation with true values)	High agreement with true values; lower estimation error	Performance can be dataset-dependent
k-NN [25] [74]	k-Nearest Neighbors	Moderate (0.3-0.4)	Robustness to increasing missingness rates; widely applicable	Performance can be surpassed by newer methods
LLS [25]	Local Least Squares	Moderate	Good overall performance for local algorithm
BPCA [25] [74]	Bayesian Principal Component Analysis	Moderate	Effective capture of global data structure
SKNN [74]	Sequential k-Nearest Neighbors	Moderate to High	Improvement on k-NN concept	Often outperformed by standard k-NN

A separate comprehensive evaluation confirmed that local-least-squares-based methods generally constitute robust choices for handling missing values across most microarray datasets [25].

Bulk RNA-Seq Data Imputation

For bulk RNA-seq studies, particularly observational studies with missing covariate data, RNAseqCovarImpute represents a significant methodological advance. This multiple imputation (MI) procedure incorporates principal component analysis (PCA) of the transcriptome into the imputation model to avoid bias [7].

Table 2: Performance of RNAseqCovarImpute vs. Standard Approaches in Bulk RNA-Seq

Method	True Positive Rate (TPR)	False Discovery Rate (FDR) Control	Bias Minimization	Key Feature
RNAseqCovarImpute (MI PCA) [7]	High	Effective, particularly with higher missingness	Excellent	Integrates transcriptome PCs to include outcome in MI model
Single Imputation (SI) [7]	Lower than MI	Poorer control compared to MI	Can result in biased coefficients	Can lead to over-confident standard errors
Complete Case (CC) Analysis [7]	Lower than MI	N/A	Can result in biased estimates	Reduces statistical power by dropping participants

Simulation studies on three real datasets demonstrate that RNAseqCovarImpute outperforms complete case and single imputation analyses in uncovering true positive differentially expressed genes [7].

Single-Cell RNA-Seq Data Imputation

The scRNA-seq field has seen rapid development of specialized imputation methods to address the pronounced dropout problem. Benchmarking evaluations have compared numerous algorithms using metrics like mean square error (MSE) and Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) between imputed and true expression values.

Table 3: Benchmarking Performance of scRNA-Seq Imputation Methods

Method	Underlying Approach	Reported Performance	Notable Strengths	Considerations
cnnImpute [5]	Convolutional Neural Network	Superior PCC & lowest MSE in benchmarks [5]	Accurate missing value recovery; preserves cell cluster integrity
scNTImpute [75]	Neural Topic Model	Accurate dropout identification and imputation	Improves cell subset clustering; addresses technical noise	"Black box" nature of deep learning
DeepImpute [5]	Deep Neural Network (Multiple sub-networks)	Second to cnnImpute in accuracy [5]	Fast computation; low memory requirement
DCA [5]	Deep Count Autoencoder	High performance in benchmarks [5]	Specifically models count data noise
scImpute [75]	Statistical Mixture Model	Moderate performance	Identifies likely dropouts via mixture model
MAGIC [5]	Graph-based Diffusion	Variable performance	Preserves global expression patterns	Can over-smooth data [5]

It is noteworthy that some methods, including scImpute and scNTImpute, are specifically designed to impute only the values identified as likely dropouts, thereby avoiding the introduction of new biases into the portions of the data not affected by technical zeros [75].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing RNAseqCovarImpute for Bulk RNA-Seq

Purpose: To perform multiple imputation of missing covariates in observational bulk RNA-seq studies prior to differential expression analysis.

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Input and Preparation: Begin with a raw count matrix (genes × samples) and a covariate data frame containing missing values. Normalize the count data using the voom transformation from the limma package to obtain log-counts per million (logCPM).

• Principal Component Analysis: Perform PCA on the normalized logCPM matrix using the PCAtools package in R [7]. The number of principal components to retain is critical for performance.

• Determine Optimal PCs: Apply Horn's Parallel Analysis to identify the number of significant principal components to include in the imputation model. This method retains PCs with eigenvalues greater than those from random data and has been shown to provide superior control of false positive rates, especially with higher levels of missing data [7].

• Multiple Imputation: Use the RNAseqCovarImpute R package to create m imputed datasets (a common choice is m=20). The imputation model should include all relevant covariates and the pre-selected number of PCs from the previous step.

• Differential Expression Analysis: For each of the m imputed datasets, run a standard limma-voom pipeline:

  • Transform the data using limma::voom().
  • Fit a linear model with limma::lmFit().
  • Compute moderated t-statistics with limma::eBayes().

• Results Pooling: Apply Rubin's rules to combine the results (coefficients, standard errors, and p-values) from the m differential expression analyses into a single set of estimates [7].

• Multiple Testing Correction: Adjust the pooled p-values for multiplicity to control the False Discovery Rate (FDR) using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure or similar methods.

Validation: When possible, compare the results from the MI analysis with a complete-case analysis to assess the impact of missing data handling on the identified gene list.

Protocol 2: Imputing scRNA-seq Data with cnnImpute

Purpose: To accurately recover missing values (dropouts) in scRNA-seq data while preserving underlying biological heterogeneity.

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing and QC: Start with a UMI count matrix. Filter out cells with no expressed genes and genes that are not expressed in any cell to create a clean expression matrix [5].

• Cell Clustering: Reduce the dimensionality of the filtered data using t-SNE. Then, cluster the cells into M groups using algorithms like k-means or ADPclust. This step helps in capturing cell-to-cell relationships [5].

• Dropout Probability Estimation: Employ an Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm with a gamma-normal mixture model to calculate the probability that each zero expression value is a technical dropout [5]. Set a threshold (default is 0.5); values with a probability exceeding this threshold are designated as missing and flagged for imputation.

• Gene Subset Selection: For a gene to be considered a target for imputation, it must have at least one cell where its dropout probability surpasses the threshold. Divide the target genes into smaller subsets (default N=512 genes per subset) to make the subsequent deep learning steps computationally efficient and robust [5].

• CNN Model Training and Imputation: For each subset of target genes:

  • Identify highly correlated genes to use as input features for the Convolutional Neural Network.
  • Construct and train an individual CNN model. The architecture typically involves convolutional layers to learn patterns from the correlated gene expression profiles, followed by fully connected layers for the final prediction [5].
  • Use the trained model to recover the missing values for the target genes in the subset.

• Output: Reassemble the subsets to produce the final, imputed scRNA-seq expression matrix.

Validation: To assess imputation accuracy, randomly mask 10% of non-zero expression values before imputation. After running cnnImpute, calculate the Mean Square Error (MSE) and Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) between the imputed values and the masked true values [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Software Tools for Transcriptomic Data Imputation

Tool Name	Technology Scope	Primary Function	Key Feature
RNAseqCovarImpute [7]	Bulk RNA-seq	Multiple Imputation for missing covariates	Integrates with limma-voom pipeline; uses PCA to include outcome information
cnnImpute [5]	scRNA-seq	Dropout imputation	CNN-based; estimates missing probabilities before imputation
scNTImpute [75]	scRNA-seq	Dropout imputation	Neural topic model for feature extraction and cell similarity
MissVIA [25]	Microarray	Web-based imputation platform	Determines optimal algorithm for user's data via simulation
DCA [5]	scRNA-seq	Dropout imputation	Deep count autoencoder with noise model for count data
scImpute [75]	scRNA-seq	Dropout imputation	Statistical method that imputes only likely dropout values
PF-10040	PF-10040, CAS:132928-46-2, MF:C20H24ClNO2, MW:345.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
PF-03246799	PF-03246799, CAS:1065110-62-4, MF:C15H17N3, MW:239.32 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The choice of an imputation method is a consequential decision that must be aligned with the specific transcriptomic technology and research context. For microarray data, established methods like EM_array and Local Least Squares (LLS) provide robust performance [25] [74]. For bulk RNA-seq with missing covariates, RNAseqCovarImpute offers a statistically rigorous framework that outperforms simpler approaches [7]. In the challenging domain of scRNA-seq, deep learning methods like cnnImpute and scNTImpute demonstrate leading accuracy in recovering missing values while preserving critical biological variation [5] [75].

Crucially, method performance is not universal; it is influenced by the dataset structure, the missingness mechanism (MCAR, MAR, MNAR), and the percentage of missing data [60]. Therefore, validation through data masking, as described in the protocols, is an essential step in any analytical pipeline. By selecting and implementing these advanced imputation methods with care, researchers can significantly enhance the reliability and biological fidelity of their transcriptomic findings.

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has revolutionized the identification of cellular heterogeneity, but its utility is compromised by high dropout rates, where true biological signals are obscured by technical zeros. This case study examines the application of SmartImpute, a targeted computational imputation framework, to recover accurate cell type clusters from scRNA-seq data in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). By focusing on a predefined panel of marker genes and employing a modified generative adversarial imputation network (GAIN), SmartImpute successfully distinguishes between technical artifacts and true biological zeros. The results demonstrate substantial improvement in clustering resolution, cell type annotation accuracy, and the preservation of biologically meaningful gene expression patterns, providing a robust protocol for enhancing downstream analyses in transcriptomic research.

The handling of missing values, or dropouts, represents a significant challenge in single-cell transcriptomics. Dropouts occur due to low mRNA quantities, technical artifacts, or inherent cell-to-cell variation, leading to an excess of zero values in the expression matrix [20]. These zeros obscure genuine biological heterogeneity, complicating critical analyses such as cell type identification, differential expression, and trajectory inference. While numerous imputation methods exist, many are computationally intensive, risk overfitting, or fail to preserve true biological zeros, thereby introducing artificial noise [20] [76]. This case study is situated within a broader research thesis on managing missing values in transcriptomics, evaluating a targeted strategy that prioritizes biological relevance and computational efficiency for accurate signal recovery in single-cell clustering.

Case Study: SmartImpute Application in HNSCC

Experimental Aim and Dataset

This case study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the SmartImpute framework in recovering biological signals for cell type clustering. The analysis utilized a public scRNA-seq dataset from Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC) [20]. The dataset comprised multiple cell types, including various T-cell subsets (e.g., CD4 conventional T, CD8 exhausted T), fibroblasts, myocytes, and myofibroblasts. Prior to imputation, cell type labels annotated in the original study were used as the ground truth for benchmarking performance.

Methodology and Workflow

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key experimental steps, from data input to downstream analysis, for accurate biological signal recovery.

Targeted Gene Panel Selection

SmartImpute introduces a targeted approach by focusing imputation on a predefined set of biologically informative marker genes [20]. The initial panel was derived from 580 well-established marker genes (BD Rhapsody Immune Response Targeted Panel). This strategy enhances biological relevance and computational efficiency by reducing the imputation problem dimensionality. Researchers can customize this panel using the provided tpGPT R package, which leverages a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model to tailor gene selection to specific project needs [20].

Modified GAIN Architecture for Imputation

The core of SmartImpute employs a modified Generative Adversarial Imputation Network (GAIN) [20]. This architecture features a multi-task discriminator that distinguishes between truly observed values, imputed values, and biological zeros. This design prevents the overfitting common in other methods and preserves true biological zeros, ensuring that imputed values reflect genuine signal rather than artificial noise.

Key Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Target Gene Panel Selection for scRNA-seq Imputation

This protocol details the steps for defining a custom marker gene panel for targeted imputation, a critical first step for ensuring biological relevance.

• Step 1: Initial Panel Compilation. Begin with a core set of ~500-600 well-characterized marker genes relevant to the tissue or disease system under study. The immune response panel used in this study serves as a robust template [20].
• Step 2: Contextual Customization. Utilize the tpGPT R package to refine the initial panel. The tool integrates dataset-specific features to recommend a final gene list optimized for the particular biological context [20].
• Step 3: Panel Validation. Validate the selected gene panel by assessing the expression of known cell type-specific markers in the raw data. The panel should encompass markers for all major and minor expected cell populations.

Protocol 2: Executing Targeted Imputation with SmartImpute

This protocol describes the procedure for running the SmartImpute algorithm after gene panel selection.

• Step 1: Data Preprocessing. Prepare the gene-cell expression matrix, ensuring it is normalized and filtered for low-quality cells. The matrix should include the full gene complement, but the target panel will be flagged for the imputation engine.
• Step 2: Model Training. Input the expression matrix and the target gene list into the SmartImpute framework. The modified GAIN will be trained to learn the joint distribution of expression values, focusing on the relationships within the target panel [20].
• Step 3: Imputation and Output. Execute the model to generate the imputed expression matrix. SmartImpute will output a denser matrix for the target genes, while non-target genes remain in their original state to minimize unnecessary manipulation and noise introduction.

Results and Performance Analysis

The performance of SmartImpute was quantitatively and qualitatively assessed against non-imputed data.

Clustering Resolution and Visualization

Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) visualization demonstrated a marked improvement in cluster resolution after SmartImpute imputation [20]. Clusters that were indistinct in the raw data, such as CD4 Tconv, CD8 exhausted T, and CD8 Tconv cells, became clearly separable. Furthermore, closely related cell types like myocytes, fibroblasts, and myofibroblasts were resolved while maintaining their biological distinctiveness.

Cell Type Annotation Accuracy

Cell type prediction accuracy was evaluated using the SingleR package with a BLUEPRINT cell type reference. Imputation with SmartImpute consistently improved prediction accuracy. For example, the identification of fibroblasts improved dramatically, with SmartImpute increasing the correct annotation rate from 57.3% (without imputation) to a significantly higher percentage [20].

Table 1: Impact of SmartImpute on Downstream Analytical Outcomes

Analysis Type	Without Imputation	With SmartImpute	Key Improvement
UMAP Clustering	Overlapping, indistinct T-cell clusters	Well-separated, discrete T-cell and fibroblast clusters	Enhanced resolution of closely related cell types
Cell Type Annotation	57.3% accuracy for fibroblasts	Significantly improved accuracy (>57.3%)	More reliable cell type identification
Marker Gene Heatmap	Sparse, discontinuous expression in diagonal blocks	Dense, continuous expression patterns for true markers	Clearer visualization of cell-type-specific signal

Biological Signal Fidelity

Heatmap visualization of marker gene expression confirmed the recovery of true biological signal. In the raw data, expression patterns for marker genes in their corresponding cell types were sparse. After SmartImpute imputation, these diagonal blocks showed filled, continuous expression, while off-diagonal blocks remained largely empty, confirming that the method did not generate false-positive signals [20].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table catalogues key computational tools and resources essential for implementing the described single-cell imputation and analysis workflow.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function/Brief Explanation	Relevant Protocol/Section
SmartImpute Software	Targeted imputation framework using a modified GAIN to handle dropouts.	Protocol 2, Section 2.2.2
tpGPT R Package	GPT-based tool for selecting and customizing marker gene panels for targeted studies.	Protocol 1, Section 2.2.1
BD Rhapsody Immune Response Panel	A predefined panel of 580 human genes serving as a starting point for target selection.	Protocol 1, Section 2.2.1
SingleR Package	Reference-based cell type annotation tool used for post-imputation validation.	Section 2.4.2
BLUEPRINT / Monaco Reference	High-quality bulk RNA-seq reference datasets used as a ground truth for immune cell typing.	Section 2.4.2
DL-Norepinephrine tartrate	DL-Norepinephrine tartrate, CAS:51-40-1, MF:C12H17NO9, MW:319.26 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
(+)-Norgestrel	Levonorgestrel High-Purity Reference Standard	Levonorgestrel: a high-purity progestin for pharmacological and endocrine research. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.

Discussion

This case study demonstrates that a targeted imputation strategy, as embodied by SmartImpute, effectively addresses the pervasive challenge of dropouts in scRNA-seq data. By concentrating computational effort on a curated set of biologically informative genes, the method achieves a superior balance between recovering missing signals and preserving true biological zeros. The results in the HNSCC dataset confirm that this approach enhances key downstream tasks, including clustering, visualization, and cell type annotation. These advancements are critical for drug development, where accurately identifying cellular targets and understanding the tumor microenvironment can inform therapeutic strategies. Future directions include adapting this framework for spatial transcriptomics data and further refining gene panel selection for non-model organisms and complex disease states.

In the field of transcriptomics research, a fundamental challenge is the pervasive issue of missing data, or "dropouts," where expressed transcripts are not detected and are recorded as zeros [36]. These dropouts can severely compromise the integrity of downstream biological analyses, leading to biased conclusions regarding cellular identity, function, and heterogeneity. A critical step in ensuring the reliability of any computational method designed to handle missing data, such as an imputation algorithm, is its rigorous validation. This application note details how RNA Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (RNA FISH), a powerful orthogonal imaging technique, serves as a gold standard for confirming the accuracy of transcriptomic data imputation.

The Imputation Validation Framework: Integrating Sequencing and Imaging

The core principle of this validation framework is the integration of two complementary data modalities: data from sequencing technologies (e.g., scRNA-seq), which is susceptible to dropouts and requires imputation, and data from imaging technologies (e.g., RNA FISH), which provides a direct, spatial count of RNA molecules with a different set of technical artifacts. By comparing the imputed scRNA-seq data against the RNA FISH data, researchers can benchmark performance in a biologically grounded manner.

The Critical Need for Orthogonal Validation

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), while powerful, suffers from technical noise and a high rate of dropouts, where a significant proportion of truly expressed transcripts are not detected [77]. A recent study systematically compared transcriptional noise quantification from multiple scRNA-seq algorithms to single-molecule RNA FISH (smFISH). It found that while scRNA-seq could identify global trends in noise amplification, all tested algorithms systematically underestimated the fold-change in noise compared to smFISH measurements [77]. This finding underscores a critical limitation of scRNA-seq and highlights why validation against a more direct quantification method is indispensable. Relying solely on internal consistency metrics within a single data modality is insufficient to guarantee biological accuracy.

A Workflow for FISH-Guided Imputation and Validation

The following diagram illustrates a robust workflow that leverages multi-omics data to enhance imputation and uses RNA FISH for final validation.

This workflow, as implemented by tools like ImputeHiFI, utilizes complementary information from single-cell Hi-C data (for 3D genome structure) and RNA FISH data (for cell-type identity) to impute missing probes in DNA FISH data with high fidelity [78]. The final output can then be validated against additional, orthogonal RNA FISH experiments to confirm that the imputed data has led to biologically accurate interpretations, such as improved cell clustering and compartment identification.

Quantitative Comparison of Validation Metrics

The table below summarizes key quantitative findings from recent studies that either directly or indirectly validate sequencing-based data against RNA FISH or utilize multi-omics integration for imputation.

Table 1: Quantitative Metrics from Transcriptomic Validation and Imputation Studies

Study / Method	Key Finding	Quantitative Result	Implication for Validation
scRNA-seq vs. smFISH Noise Quantification [77]	scRNA-seq algorithms underestimate noise changes.	Systematic underestimation of noise fold-change compared to smFISH.	RNA FISH provides a more direct and reliable ground truth for dynamic expression changes.
ImputeHiFI for DNA FISH Imputation [78]	Integrates scHi-C & RNA FISH to address high missing rates.	Handles missing probe rates of 5% to 75%; improves cell clustering and compartment identification.	Multi-omics integration, guided by RNA FISH, significantly enhances imputation accuracy.
PERSIST Gene Selection [79]	Selects optimal gene panels for spatial transcriptomics from scRNA-seq.	Panels enable more accurate genome-wide expression prediction.	Optimized panels bridge scRNA-seq and FISH technologies, improving cross-validation.
MOFA+ Multi-omics Integration [80]	Unsupervised integration of transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data.	Model explained 26.4% of variance in transcriptomic data; identified outcome-associated factors.	Demonstrates the power of multi-omics frameworks to prioritize biologically relevant features for validation.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Single-Molecule RNA FISH (smFISH) for Validation

This protocol is optimized for sensitive and quantitative detection of RNA molecules in fixed cells and can be used to generate validation data for specific target genes [81] [82].

I. Probe Design and Preparation

• Design Tools: Use specialized software like TrueProbes or Stellaris Probe Designer. TrueProbes uses genome-wide BLAST-based analysis and thermodynamic modeling to maximize specificity and minimize off-target binding [82].
• Probe Selection: Design a set of at least 25-48 oligonucleotide probes (typically 20-mer) targeting the exon regions of the RNA of interest. Probes should have a GC content of around 45% and be checked for minimal self-complementarity or cross-dimerization.
• Fluorophore Conjugation: Conjugate probes with bright, spectrally distinct fluorophores (e.g., Quasar570 or Quasar670). Prepare a stock solution (e.g., 25 µM) in TE buffer and a working dilution (e.g., 2.5 µM). Aliquot and store at -20°C.

II. Sample Preparation and Fixation

• Cell Culture: Grow cells on poly-L-lysine-coated coverslips to ~60-80% confluency.
• Fixation: Fix cells with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) in buffer for 10-15 minutes at room temperature.
• Permeabilization: Permeabilize cells using a solution containing 0.1% Triton X-100 or 70% ethanol for 10-30 minutes. For yeast cells, an optimized lyticase digestion step is incorporated for more homogeneous results [81].

III. Hybridization and Washes

• Hybridization Buffer: Prepare a buffer containing deionized formamide, SSC, dextran sulfate, and RNase inhibitors (e.g., Ribonucleoside Vanadyl Complex).
• Hybridization: Apply the probe mixture in hybridization buffer to the fixed sample. Incubate in a dark, humidified chamber at 37°C for 4-16 hours.
• Post-Hybridization Washes: Perform stringent washes to remove unbound probes:
  • Wash with pre-warmed wash buffer (containing formamide and SSC) for 30 minutes at 37°C.
  • Rinse with SSC buffer.
  • Perform a final wash with PBS.

IV. Imaging and Analysis

• Mounting: Mount coverslips using an anti-fade mounting medium containing DAPI for nuclear counterstaining.
• Image Acquisition: Acquire high-resolution z-stack images using a widefield or confocal microscope with a 40x or 60x oil-immersion objective. Use filter sets appropriate for the chosen fluorophores.
• Image Analysis: Use image analysis software (e.g., ImageJ/FIJI, CellProfiler, or FISH-quant) to automatically detect and count individual RNA spots in 3D. The spatial and intensity information can be used to distinguish mature from nascent transcripts [81].

Protocol: Computational Workflow for scRNA-seq Imputation Validation

This protocol outlines the steps to validate any scRNA-seq imputation method using orthogonal RNA FISH data.

I. Data Preprocessing

• scRNA-seq Data: Generate a gene expression count matrix from your scRNA-seq data. Do not apply the imputation method to be validated at this stage.
• RNA FISH Data: Process the smFISH images to obtain a cell-by-gene count matrix for the same target genes. This matrix should have cell-level correspondence or population-level correspondence with the scRNA-seq data.

II. Correlation Analysis at the Population Level

• For each target gene, calculate the mean expression level across all cells in both the (unimputed) scRNA-seq dataset and the RNA FISH dataset.
• Calculate the Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficient between these mean expression values across all validated genes. A low correlation indicates a high degree of dropout in scRNA-seq.
• Apply the imputation method to the scRNA-seq data.
• Recalculate the mean expression from the imputed data and correlate it again with the RNA FISH means. A significant increase in correlation indicates the imputation method is effectively recovering true expression signals.

III. Validation of Cell-type Classification and Clustering

• Perform cell clustering using the unimputed scRNA-seq data and annotate cell types based on known markers.
• Compare these clusters to cell types identified from the RNA FISH data using protein markers or a robust FISH-based classifier.
• Calculate clustering metrics like the Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) to quantify agreement.
• Repeat the clustering and ARI calculation using the imputed scRNA-seq data. An improvement in ARI suggests that imputation has enhanced the biological signal, leading to more accurate cell-type identification that aligns with the orthogonal method [83].

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Resources for FISH Validation

Resource	Function / Description	Example Products / Tools
Probe Design Software	Computationally designs specific oligonucleotide probe sets to minimize off-target binding.	TrueProbes [82], Stellaris Probe Designer [81]
Labeled Oligonucleotides	Fluorescently labeled probes that hybridize to target RNA for visualization.	Stellaris FISH Probes, Custom DNA Oligos with Quasar dyes [81]
Hybridization Buffers	Creates optimal chemical conditions (salt, pH, formamide) for specific probe-target binding.	Commercially available buffers or lab-made (Formamide, SSC, Dextran Sulfate) [81]
Mounting Medium with DAPI	Preserves samples for microscopy and provides a nuclear counterstain for cell segmentation.	ProLong Gold Antifade Mountant with DAPI [81]
High-Resolution Microscope	Essential for imaging individual RNA molecules; requires appropriate filters and a sensitive camera.	Zeiss, Nikon, or Olympus systems with 40x/60x-100x oil objectives
Image Analysis Software	Automates the quantification and localization of RNA spots from acquired images.	FISH-quant [81], ImageJ/FIJI with plugins [81]

Within the broader thesis of handling missing values in transcriptomics, the use of orthogonal data for validation is not merely a best practice—it is a necessity. As this application note has detailed, RNA FISH provides a direct, spatially resolved, and quantitative measure of gene expression that is largely independent of the technical artifacts plaguing sequencing-based methods. By employing the detailed protocols and frameworks outlined herein, researchers and drug developers can move beyond computational metrics and ground the performance of their imputation algorithms in biological reality. This rigorous approach ensures that downstream analyses—from identifying novel cell states to discovering therapeutic targets—are built upon a foundation of reliable and accurate data.

Conclusion

Effectively handling missing values is not a mere preprocessing step but a critical determinant of success in transcriptomics research. No single method is universally superior; the optimal strategy depends on the data's nature, scale, and the specific biological question. The field is moving beyond simple imputation towards robust, scalable integration frameworks like BERT and sophisticated multiple imputation techniques that properly account for uncertainty. As transcriptomics continues to evolve, future developments will likely focus on methods that better distinguish technical zeros from true biological absence and provide more seamless integration of multi-omic data. By adopting these advanced, principled approaches, researchers can significantly enhance the rigor and translational potential of their findings in biomedicine and drug development.

References

• 1. the zero-inflation controversy about scRNA-seq data [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-022-02601-5]
• 2. Exposure-inducible genes may contribute to missingness ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-14395-0]
• 3. Missing data and technical variability in single-cell RNA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6215955/]
• 4. Missing Value Imputation With Low-Rank Matrix ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9329700/]
• 5. cnnImpute: missing value recovery for single cell RNA ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-53998-x]
• 6. rMisbeta: A robust missing value imputation approach in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482521007058]
• 7. RNAseqCovarImpute: a multiple imputation procedure that ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-024-03376-7]
• 8. Feature selection methods affect the performance of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02624-3]
• 9. a two-step approach in handling missing values ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9109373/]
• 10. Mechanism-aware imputation: a two-step approach in ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-022-04659-1]
• 11. Understanding Missing Data Mechanisms: Types and ... [https://ydata.ai/resources/understanding-missing-data-mechanisms.html]
• 12. Missing data in multi-omics integration: Recent advances ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9949722/]
• 13. spatially-aware normalization for spatial transcriptomics data [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03565-y]
• 14. A Review of Integrative Imputation for Multi-Omics Datasets [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7594632/]
• 15. New review decodes transcriptomics: bulk vs. single-cell ... [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1103818]
• 16. Embracing the dropouts in single-cell RNA-seq analysis [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14976-9]
• 17. RESCUE: imputing dropout events in single-cell RNA- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6624880/]
• 18. Missing cell types in single-cell references impact ... - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40197327/]
• 19. The impact of dropouts in scRNAseq dense neighborhood ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037025001023]
• 20. SmartImpute is a targeted imputation framework for single ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12461658/]
• 21. scTsI: an effective two-stage imputation method for single- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12204820/]
• 22. DropDAE: Denosing Autoencoder with Contrastive Learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12383624/]
• 23. Multi-Omics: Challenges and Solutions [https://bigomics.ch/blog/key-challenges-in-multi-omics-data-integration/]
• 24. -based Random outperforms other methods for... forest imputation [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-019-3110-0]
• 25. Missing value imputation for microarray data - PMC - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4028811/]
• 26. Handling Missing Values with Random - Analytics Vidhya Forest [https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2022/05/handling-missing-values-with-random-forest/]
• 27. Efficient technique of microarray missing data imputation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-03438-x]
• 28. Benchmarking single-cell cross-omics imputation methods for ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03514-9]
• 29. BiAEImpute: a robust bidirectional autoencoder framework for ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11988-x]
• 30. Deep Learning Methods for Omics Data Imputation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10604785/]
• 31. BiAEImpute: a robust bidirectional autoencoder framework ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12465494/]
• 32. Graph-based autoencoder integrates spatial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35233-1]
• 33. Scmaskgan: masked multi-scale CNN and attention-enhanced ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-025-06138-9]
• 34. stAI: a deep learning-based model for missing gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11890069/]
• 35. spaMGCN: a graph convolutional network with autoencoder ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03637-z]
• 36. An Interdisciplinary and Cross-Task Review on Missing ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.01196v1]
• 37. High performance data integration for large-scale analyses ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62237-4]
• 38. Analysis Approaches for Spatial Gene Expression Data [https://www.10xgenomics.com/analysis-guides/spatial-gex-lit-review]
• 39. Advancing bioinformatics with large language models [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10802675/]
• 40. A Two-Step Algorithm for Handling Block-Wise Missing ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/7/3650]
• 41. A framework for block-wise missing data in multi-omics [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307482]
• 42. Flexynesis: A deep learning toolkit for bulk multi-omics data ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63688-5]
• 43. missing view completion for multi-timepoint omics data via ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58314-3]
• 44. A Neural Network-Based Iterative Imputation Method Using ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/17/6/869]
• 45. scVGAMF: a novel imputation method for scRNA-seq data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12554638/]
• 46. Imputing spatial transcriptomics through gene network ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-06964-2]
• 47. Meta-imputation of transcriptome from genotypes across ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8830793/]
• 48. Navigating single-cell RNA-sequencing: protocols, tools ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12085826/]
• 49. Handling missing values in healthcare data: A systematic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S093336572300101X]
• 50. Missing data in single-cell transcriptomes reveals ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12393341/]
• 51. The 2025 Bioinformatics Toolkit: From Sample Prep to AI- ... [https://blog.omni-inc.com/blog/the-2025-bioinformatics-toolkit-from-sample-prep-to-ai-driven-analysis]
• 52. 10 Essential Data for Visualization Best Practices 2025 [https://www.timetackle.com/data-visualization-best-practices/]
• 53. 8 Essential Data for Visualization Best Practices 2025 [https://pdf.ai/resources/data-visualization-best-practices]
• 54. Integrating single-cell RNA-seq datasets with substantial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12577435/]
• 55. FedscGen: privacy-preserving federated batch effect ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03684-6]
• 56. An order-preserving batch-effect correction method based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12207412/]
• 57. Garbage In, Garbage Out: Dealing with Data Errors ... [https://blog.omni-inc.com/blog/garbage-in-garbage-out-dealing-with-data-errors-bioinformatics]
• 58. Comprehensive noise reduction in single-cell data with the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237525002140]
• 59. CellFM: a large-scale foundation model pre-trained on ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59926-5]
• 60. Benchmarking Missing Data Imputation Methods for Time ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12392262/]
• 61. PbImpute: Precise Zero Discrimination and Balanced ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11898086/]
• 62. Effect of imputation on gene network reconstruction from ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389921002889]
• 63. single-cell spatial transcriptomics imputation via style transfer [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63185-9]
• 64. Single-cell Spatial Transcriptomics Imputation via Style Transfer [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11838188/]
• 65. SpatialQC: automated quality control for spatial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11333854/]
• 66. Comprehensive generation, visualization, and reporting of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29212-9]
• 67. Combining clinical and molecular data for personalized ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169260724004255]
• 68. Zero-shot evaluation reveals limitations of single-cell ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03574-x]
• 69. Benchmarking deep learning methods for ... - Genome Biology [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03869-z]
• 70. UNICORN: Towards universal cellular expression prediction ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12559380/]
• 71. scDisInFact: disentangled learning for integration and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45227-w]
• 72. VISTA Uncovers Missing Gene Expression and Spatial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11957009/]
• 73. The covariance environment defines cellular niches for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-024-02193-4]
• 74. Comparative analysis of missing value imputation methods to ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-11-15]
• 75. Imputation method for single-cell RNA-seq data using neural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10673642/]
• 76. Handling Missing Values and Outliers in Bioinformatics [https://www.metwarebio.com/bioinformatics-missing-values-outliers-processing/]
• 77. Single-cell RNA sequencing algorithms underestimate ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237524003230]
• 78. ImputeHiFI: An Imputation Method for Multiplexed DNA FISH ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558076/]
• 79. Predictive and robust gene selection for spatial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37392-1]
• 80. Leveraging complementary multi-omics data integration ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11949029/]
• 81. Optimized protocol for single-molecule RNA FISH to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8264745/]
• 82. TrueProbes: Quantitative Single-Molecule RNA-FISH ... [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/108599]
• 83. Orthogonal multimodality integration and clustering in single ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-024-05773-y]