Cargando…

A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

BACKGROUND: Single-cell transcriptomics is rapidly advancing our understanding of the cellular composition of complex tissues and organisms. A major limitation in most analysis pipelines is the reliance on manual annotations to determine cell identities, which are time-consuming and irreproducible....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abdelaal, Tamim, Michielsen, Lieke, Cats, Davy, Hoogduin, Dylan, Mei, Hailiang, Reinders, Marcel J. T., Mahfouz, Ahmed
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6734286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31500660
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z
_version_ 1783450122277879808
author Abdelaal, Tamim
Michielsen, Lieke
Cats, Davy
Hoogduin, Dylan
Mei, Hailiang
Reinders, Marcel J. T.
Mahfouz, Ahmed
author_facet Abdelaal, Tamim
Michielsen, Lieke
Cats, Davy
Hoogduin, Dylan
Mei, Hailiang
Reinders, Marcel J. T.
Mahfouz, Ahmed
author_sort Abdelaal, Tamim
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Single-cell transcriptomics is rapidly advancing our understanding of the cellular composition of complex tissues and organisms. A major limitation in most analysis pipelines is the reliance on manual annotations to determine cell identities, which are time-consuming and irreproducible. The exponential growth in the number of cells and samples has prompted the adaptation and development of supervised classification methods for automatic cell identification. RESULTS: Here, we benchmarked 22 classification methods that automatically assign cell identities including single-cell-specific and general-purpose classifiers. The performance of the methods is evaluated using 27 publicly available single-cell RNA sequencing datasets of different sizes, technologies, species, and levels of complexity. We use 2 experimental setups to evaluate the performance of each method for within dataset predictions (intra-dataset) and across datasets (inter-dataset) based on accuracy, percentage of unclassified cells, and computation time. We further evaluate the methods’ sensitivity to the input features, number of cells per population, and their performance across different annotation levels and datasets. We find that most classifiers perform well on a variety of datasets with decreased accuracy for complex datasets with overlapping classes or deep annotations. The general-purpose support vector machine classifier has overall the best performance across the different experiments. CONCLUSIONS: We present a comprehensive evaluation of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data. All the code used for the evaluation is available on GitHub (https://github.com/tabdelaal/scRNAseq_Benchmark). Additionally, we provide a Snakemake workflow to facilitate the benchmarking and to support the extension of new methods and new datasets. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6734286
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67342862019-09-12 A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data Abdelaal, Tamim Michielsen, Lieke Cats, Davy Hoogduin, Dylan Mei, Hailiang Reinders, Marcel J. T. Mahfouz, Ahmed Genome Biol Research BACKGROUND: Single-cell transcriptomics is rapidly advancing our understanding of the cellular composition of complex tissues and organisms. A major limitation in most analysis pipelines is the reliance on manual annotations to determine cell identities, which are time-consuming and irreproducible. The exponential growth in the number of cells and samples has prompted the adaptation and development of supervised classification methods for automatic cell identification. RESULTS: Here, we benchmarked 22 classification methods that automatically assign cell identities including single-cell-specific and general-purpose classifiers. The performance of the methods is evaluated using 27 publicly available single-cell RNA sequencing datasets of different sizes, technologies, species, and levels of complexity. We use 2 experimental setups to evaluate the performance of each method for within dataset predictions (intra-dataset) and across datasets (inter-dataset) based on accuracy, percentage of unclassified cells, and computation time. We further evaluate the methods’ sensitivity to the input features, number of cells per population, and their performance across different annotation levels and datasets. We find that most classifiers perform well on a variety of datasets with decreased accuracy for complex datasets with overlapping classes or deep annotations. The general-purpose support vector machine classifier has overall the best performance across the different experiments. CONCLUSIONS: We present a comprehensive evaluation of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data. All the code used for the evaluation is available on GitHub (https://github.com/tabdelaal/scRNAseq_Benchmark). Additionally, we provide a Snakemake workflow to facilitate the benchmarking and to support the extension of new methods and new datasets. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6734286/ /pubmed/31500660 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Abdelaal, Tamim
Michielsen, Lieke
Cats, Davy
Hoogduin, Dylan
Mei, Hailiang
Reinders, Marcel J. T.
Mahfouz, Ahmed
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data
title A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data
title_full A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data
title_fullStr A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data
title_short A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data
title_sort comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell rna sequencing data
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6734286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31500660
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z
work_keys_str_mv AT abdelaaltamim acomparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT michielsenlieke acomparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT catsdavy acomparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT hoogduindylan acomparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT meihailiang acomparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT reindersmarceljt acomparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT mahfouzahmed acomparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT abdelaaltamim comparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT michielsenlieke comparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT catsdavy comparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT hoogduindylan comparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT meihailiang comparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT reindersmarceljt comparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata
AT mahfouzahmed comparisonofautomaticcellidentificationmethodsforsinglecellrnasequencingdata