Correction: Genome Biol 24, 62 (2023)

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-023-02904-1


Following publication of the original article [1], it was pointed out that the legend to Table 1 did not match the content of the table.

The incorrect Table 1 is as follows:

Table 1 Overview of scRNA-seq simulators compared in this study. Methods are ordered alphabetically and annotated according to their (in)ability to accommodate multiple batches and/or clusters, support for parallelization (parameter estimation and data simulation, respectively), software availability, and publication year. The right-most column catalogues neutral benchmark studies where each simulator was used. (✓ = yes, ✘ = no, (✓) = yes, but based on user input parameters, i.e., no support for parameter estimation, *requires random splitting of cells into two groups, †/‡ = internal/prior resampling from empirical parameter distribution, ∘ = no separate estimation step)
Full size table

The corrected Table 1 is as follows:

Table 1 Overview of scRNA-seq simulators compared in this study. Methods are ordered alphabetically and annotated according to their (in)ability to accommodate multiple batches and/or clusters, support for parallelization (parameter estimation and data simulation, respectively), software availability, and publication year. ‘Type(s)’ column specifies which type of simulations can be produced (n: “singular” references: single batch or cluster; b: multiple batches; k: multiple clusters). ‘Cell #’ refers to whether the number of cells can be varied. Symbols: ✓ = yes, ✘ = no, (✓) = yes, but based on user input parameters, i.e., no support for parameter estimation, *requires random splitting of cells into two groups, †/‡ = internal/prior resampling from empirical parameter distribution, ∘ = no separate estimation step)
Full size table

The linked citations and the hyperlinks to the availability of data (in table 1) can be found in the original article. The original article [1] has been corrected.