Plate design confounds donor variation and model evaluation in single-cell perturbation screens

Single-cell screens of immune cells from many donors are used to study why individuals respond differently and to benchmark response models. Each donor-perturbation combination typically occupies one well, controls are grouped, and donors share one layout, so technical effects can look biological. Using a 90-cytokine screen, two compound screens, four cohorts and simulations, we show that well effects explain most replicate-control variation in abundant cell types, controls carry a shared offset, and identical control wells differ by hundreds of differentially expressed genes at a standard threshold, about as many as two receptor-negative proteins do. Negative controls, design-aware estimators and perturbation-specific evaluation change the interpretation of four recent analyses. A deep-learning model that scores below a perturbation-agnostic predictor under standard evaluation outperforms a simple baseline on perturbation-specific differences in two of three cell types (significantly in one with stricter controls), but predicts less well the component shared with inert wells.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Published
2026-11-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.04.764088
Primary Topic
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
preprint

Plate design confounds donor variation and model evaluation in single-cell perturbation screens

Fathi Amsaad, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, Ghazal Ghajari
3 links
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
preprint

Plate design confounds donor variation and model evaluation in single-cell perturbation screens

Fathi Amsaad, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, Ghazal Ghajari
preprint en

Abstract

Single-cell screens of immune cells from many donors are used to study why individuals respond differently and to benchmark response models. Each donor-perturbation combination typically occupies one well, controls are grouped, and donors share one layout, so technical effects can look biological. Using a 90-cytokine screen, two compound screens, four cohorts and simulations, we show that well effects explain most replicate-control variation in abundant cell types, controls carry a shared offset, and identical control wells differ by hundreds of differentially expressed genes at a standard threshold, about as many as two receptor-negative proteins do. Negative controls, design-aware estimators and perturbation-specific evaluation change the interpretation of four recent analyses. A deep-learning model that scores below a perturbation-agnostic predictor under standard evaluation outperforms a simple baseline on perturbation-specific differences in two of three cell types (significantly in one with stricter controls), but predicts less well the component shared with inert wells.

bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Wright State University (US)
Good health and well-being
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
Plate design confounds donor variation and model evaluation in single-cell perturbation screens — Fathi Amsaad, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, et al. · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS