Skip to main content
. 2022 Feb 28;18(3):e10798. doi: 10.15252/msb.202110798

Figure EV4. Correlation and gene/protein completeness analysis of single‐cell transcriptome sequencing and our LC–MS‐based single‐cell proteomics data set of the same cell line.

Figure EV4

  1. Pearson correlation of observations for each cell within each of the technologies on all genes (MS‐based proteomics, SMART‐Seq2 RNA sequencing, and droplet‐based RNA sequencing; Left) and for each cell within each of the technologies on shared genes between technologies (MS‐based proteomics, SMART‐Seq2 RNA sequencing, and droplet‐based RNA sequencing; Right).
  2. Gene/Protein expression completeness per cell on all shared genes between the three technologies (scProteomics; SMART‐seq2; and DROP‐seq).
  3. Gene and protein expression completeness as a function of ranked genes/proteins for all three technologies (Proteomics, DROP‐seq, and SMART‐Seq2). Arrows indicate a bimodal distribution for single‐cell RNAseq data in both technologies, which is absent in proteomics.
  4. Data completeness across single cells as a function of mean protein abundance for MS‐based single‐cell proteomics and both single‐cell RNA sequencing (Drop‐Seq, SMART‐Seq2). Expected poison dropout distribution shown in red.
  5. Scatter plot of two independently measured single‐cell proteome expression values.