Research Group Stefan Bauer

Advances in single-cell ‘-omics’ allow unprecedented insights into the transcriptional profiles of individual cells and, when combined with large-scale perturbation screens, enable measuring of the effect of targeted perturbations on the whole transcriptome. These advances provide an opportunity to better understand the causative role of genes in complex biological processes. In this Perspective, we delineate the application of causal machine learning to single-cell genomics and its associated challenges. We first present the causal model that is most commonly applied to single-cell biology and then identify and discuss potential approaches to three open problems: the lack of generalization of models to novel experimental conditions, the complexity of interpreting learned models, and the difficulty of learning cell dynamics.

Single-cell data provide high-dimensional measurements of the transcriptional states of cells, but extracting insights into the regulatory functions of genes, particularly identifying transcriptional mechanisms affected by biological perturbations, remains a challenge. Many perturbations induce compensatory cellular responses, making it difficult to distinguish direct from indirect effects on gene regulation. Modeling how gene regulatory functions shape the temporal dynamics of these responses is key to improving our understanding of biological perturbations. Dynamical models based on differential equations offer a principled way to capture transcriptional dynamics, but their application to single-cell data has been hindered by computational constraints, stochasticity, sparsity, and noise. Existing methods either rely on low-dimensional representations or make strong simplifying assumptions, limiting their ability to model transcriptional dynamics at scale. We introduce a Functional and Learnable model of Cell dynamicS, FLeCS, that incorporates gene network structure into coupled differential equations to model gene regulatory functions. Given (pseudo)time-series single-cell data, FLeCS accurately infers cell dynamics at scale, provides improved functional insights into transcriptional mechanisms perturbed by gene knockouts, both in myeloid differentiation and K562 Perturb-seq experiments, and simulates single-cell trajectories of A549 cells following small-molecule perturbations.

Recent machine-learning (ML)-based advances in single-cell data science have enabled the stratification of human tissue donors at single-cell resolution, promising to provide valuable diagnostic and prognostic insights. However, such insights are susceptible to biases. Here we discuss various biases that emerge along the pipeline of ML-based single-cell analysis, ranging from societal biases affecting whose samples are collected, to clinical and cohort biases that influence the generalizability of single-cell datasets, biases stemming from single-cell sequencing, ML biases specific to (weakly supervised or unsupervised) ML models trained on human single-cell samples and biases during the interpretation of results from ML models. We end by providing methods for single-cell data scientists to assess and mitigate biases, and call for efforts to address the root causes of biases.

The phenomenon of different deep learning models producing similar data representations has garnered significant attention, raising the question of why such representational similarity occurs. Identifiability theory offers a partial explanation: for a broad class of discriminative models, including many popular in representation learning, those assigning equal likelihood to the observations yield representations that are equal up to a linear transformation, if a suitable diversity condition holds. In this work, we identify two key challenges in applying identifiability theory to explain representational similarity. First, the assumption of exact likelihood equality is rarely satisfied by practical models trained with different initializations. To address this, we describe how the representations of two models deviate from being linear transformations of each other, based on their difference in log-likelihoods. Second, we demonstrate that even models with similar and near-optimal loss values can produce highly dissimilar representations due to an underappreciated difference between loss and likelihood. Our findings highlight key open questions and point to future research directions for advancing the theoretical understanding of representational similarity.