Caleb Lareau ✓

@CalebLareau

Principal Investigator at @MSKCancerCenter

4 546Followers

1 475Following

1 896Posts total

93.6KViews on collected posts

Latest posts

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau20 Aug

@CalebLareau @Nature @dana_peer @livius_tacitus @doctor_msc @nawy_t @LeifLudwig I’ve said it many times…but once more doesn’t hurt…man, I f-love your work! 613 views · 6 likes · 0 reposts · 0 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

In short, we maintain that the conclusions from our 2024 analyses hold, as reflected in this published version today. In particular, we would encourage the community not to view our comment as a “narrow technical point” but as necessary context when interpreting the title, 4.5K views · 35 likes · 1 reposts · 0 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

While there is a ‘true’ phylogenetic structure to all cells originating from the human hematopoietic system, there is no robust evidence that ReDeeM can reconstruct it with high accuracy. Most of the reported cell-cell connections are built on spurious data. The resulting trees 3.4K views · 7 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

We agree with this particular analysis, as it captures the state of this field. The utility of somatic mtDNA mutations as clonal markers has been validated in many contexts, including ReDeeM. But clonality and phylogenies (or trees) cannot be interpreted interchangeably. 8/10 3.2K views · 6 likes · 0 reposts · 2 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

Their reply delves into a variety of analyses to conclude that their conclusions still hold. These include the authors presenting a rationale for how different tree topologies that are nearly random globally can maintain clonal information locally. 7/10 https://t.co/4v3HwPppVn

3.4K views · 4 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

As is the custom in @nature, the authors can present a reply to our comment, linked here. In the authors’ words, “The Comment concerns a narrow technical point related to the variant-filtering and analytical strategy used in the study.” We, respectfully, disagree. 6/10 4K views · 6 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

We show that the reported “fine-scale lineage tracing” depictions are starkly different when one accounts for these likely artifacts. We further show that the reported phylogenetic signal is disproportionately concentrated in the molecules with the least support. 5/10 https://t.c

4.4K views · 6 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

As we examined these results, several artifacts became apparent, including, but not limited to, the accumulation of mismatches at the edges of reads. Our comment provides a basis for identifying these artifacts and a characterization of the results if removed. 4/10 https://t.co/x

26.8K views · 14 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

The title of the original paper reports deciphering "genealogies” of hematopoiesis. Fig. 1 shows a >10x increase in cell connectedness. Later figures show fully connected trees, claiming “fine-scale lineage tracing.” These are simply unprecedented and extraordinary claims. 3/10 5K views · 8 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

We all occasionally read papers with conclusions lacking full support of the data. Personally, I have rarely spent the effort to write a formal comment (this is the 3rd time in my career). However, the claims in the 2024 ReDeeM paper were extraordinary and warrant caution. 2/10 4.9K views · 11 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Caleb Lareau ✓@CalebLareau19 Aug

Online today in @nature are the final correspondences on mtDNA lineage tracing, including our work with @Dana_peer, @livius_tacitus, @doctor_msc, @nawy_t, and @LeifLudwig, concluding a dialogue spanning 2+ years. A few final thoughts: 1/10 https://t.co/Z5VCTf6ver https://t.co/

33.5K views · 210 likes · 33 reposts · 6 replies Open on X →

Against accounts of the same size

11 posts from the last 90 days, next to the under 10K follower range. below its peers on both reach and engagement.

Median views4 368this account4 175median for under 10K

Reach, %96.08%this account250.82%median for under 10K

Engagement, %0.24%this account1.41%median for under 10K

Metric	This account	Median for under 10K	Ratio
Median views per post	4 368	4 175	1.05×
Reach (views ÷ followers)	96.08%	2.5× audience	0.38×
Engagement rate	0.24%	1.41%	0.17×

Others in this range → Compare with another account → How these benchmarks are built →

Growth & engagement

How the posts we collected actually performed: views and reaction rate post by post, what the audience did with them, and where the follower count goes.

Views per post

33.5K19 Aug

4.9K

26.8K

4.4K

3.4K

3.2K

3.4K

4.5K

61320 Aug

Last 11 collected posts, oldest on the left. The scale is logarithmic: one post can outrun the rest a hundred times over.

Engagement rate per post

0.75%19 Aug

0.24%

0.18%

0.06%

0.16%

0.18%

0.15%

0.25%

0.27%

0.81%

0.98%20 Aug

Reactions — likes, reposts, replies and quotes — divided by views. Median for under 10K accounts is 1.41%.

What the audience does

Likes69.4%313 in total

Reposts7.5%34 in total

Replies3.3%15 in total

Quotes0.7%3 in total

Bookmarks19.1%86 in total

Share of every reaction we collected for this account. Replies mean argument, reposts mean endorsement, bookmarks mean the post was worth keeping.

The follower curve appears once this account has two daily snapshots — we take one a day, and this one is on its first.

Latest posts

Against accounts of the same size

Growth & engagement

Views per post

Engagement rate per post

What the audience does

Similar accounts