Cargando…

Assessment of computational methods for the analysis of single-cell ATAC-seq data

BACKGROUND: Recent innovations in single-cell Assay for Transposase Accessible Chromatin using sequencing (scATAC-seq) enable profiling of the epigenetic landscape of thousands of individual cells. scATAC-seq data analysis presents unique methodological challenges. scATAC-seq experiments sample DNA,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Huidong, Lareau, Caleb, Andreani, Tommaso, Vinyard, Michael E., Garcia, Sara P., Clement, Kendell, Andrade-Navarro, Miguel A., Buenrostro, Jason D., Pinello, Luca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6859644/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31739806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1854-5
_version_ 1783471159048667136
author Chen, Huidong
Lareau, Caleb
Andreani, Tommaso
Vinyard, Michael E.
Garcia, Sara P.
Clement, Kendell
Andrade-Navarro, Miguel A.
Buenrostro, Jason D.
Pinello, Luca
author_facet Chen, Huidong
Lareau, Caleb
Andreani, Tommaso
Vinyard, Michael E.
Garcia, Sara P.
Clement, Kendell
Andrade-Navarro, Miguel A.
Buenrostro, Jason D.
Pinello, Luca
author_sort Chen, Huidong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recent innovations in single-cell Assay for Transposase Accessible Chromatin using sequencing (scATAC-seq) enable profiling of the epigenetic landscape of thousands of individual cells. scATAC-seq data analysis presents unique methodological challenges. scATAC-seq experiments sample DNA, which, due to low copy numbers (diploid in humans), lead to inherent data sparsity (1–10% of peaks detected per cell) compared to transcriptomic (scRNA-seq) data (10–45% of expressed genes detected per cell). Such challenges in data generation emphasize the need for informative features to assess cell heterogeneity at the chromatin level. RESULTS: We present a benchmarking framework that is applied to 10 computational methods for scATAC-seq on 13 synthetic and real datasets from different assays, profiling cell types from diverse tissues and organisms. Methods for processing and featurizing scATAC-seq data were compared by their ability to discriminate cell types when combined with common unsupervised clustering approaches. We rank evaluated methods and discuss computational challenges associated with scATAC-seq analysis including inherently sparse data, determination of features, peak calling, the effects of sequencing coverage and noise, and clustering performance. Running times and memory requirements are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This reference summary of scATAC-seq methods offers recommendations for best practices with consideration for both the non-expert user and the methods developer. Despite variation across methods and datasets, SnapATAC, Cusanovich2018, and cisTopic outperform other methods in separating cell populations of different coverages and noise levels in both synthetic and real datasets. Notably, SnapATAC is the only method able to analyze a large dataset (> 80,000 cells).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6859644
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68596442019-11-29 Assessment of computational methods for the analysis of single-cell ATAC-seq data Chen, Huidong Lareau, Caleb Andreani, Tommaso Vinyard, Michael E. Garcia, Sara P. Clement, Kendell Andrade-Navarro, Miguel A. Buenrostro, Jason D. Pinello, Luca Genome Biol Research BACKGROUND: Recent innovations in single-cell Assay for Transposase Accessible Chromatin using sequencing (scATAC-seq) enable profiling of the epigenetic landscape of thousands of individual cells. scATAC-seq data analysis presents unique methodological challenges. scATAC-seq experiments sample DNA, which, due to low copy numbers (diploid in humans), lead to inherent data sparsity (1–10% of peaks detected per cell) compared to transcriptomic (scRNA-seq) data (10–45% of expressed genes detected per cell). Such challenges in data generation emphasize the need for informative features to assess cell heterogeneity at the chromatin level. RESULTS: We present a benchmarking framework that is applied to 10 computational methods for scATAC-seq on 13 synthetic and real datasets from different assays, profiling cell types from diverse tissues and organisms. Methods for processing and featurizing scATAC-seq data were compared by their ability to discriminate cell types when combined with common unsupervised clustering approaches. We rank evaluated methods and discuss computational challenges associated with scATAC-seq analysis including inherently sparse data, determination of features, peak calling, the effects of sequencing coverage and noise, and clustering performance. Running times and memory requirements are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This reference summary of scATAC-seq methods offers recommendations for best practices with consideration for both the non-expert user and the methods developer. Despite variation across methods and datasets, SnapATAC, Cusanovich2018, and cisTopic outperform other methods in separating cell populations of different coverages and noise levels in both synthetic and real datasets. Notably, SnapATAC is the only method able to analyze a large dataset (> 80,000 cells). BioMed Central 2019-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6859644/ /pubmed/31739806 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1854-5 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
Chen, Huidong
Lareau, Caleb
Andreani, Tommaso
Vinyard, Michael E.
Garcia, Sara P.
Clement, Kendell
Andrade-Navarro, Miguel A.
Buenrostro, Jason D.
Pinello, Luca
Assessment of computational methods for the analysis of single-cell ATAC-seq data
title Assessment of computational methods for the analysis of single-cell ATAC-seq data
title_full Assessment of computational methods for the analysis of single-cell ATAC-seq data
title_fullStr Assessment of computational methods for the analysis of single-cell ATAC-seq data
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of computational methods for the analysis of single-cell ATAC-seq data
title_short Assessment of computational methods for the analysis of single-cell ATAC-seq data
title_sort assessment of computational methods for the analysis of single-cell atac-seq data
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6859644/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31739806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1854-5
work_keys_str_mv AT chenhuidong assessmentofcomputationalmethodsfortheanalysisofsinglecellatacseqdata
AT lareaucaleb assessmentofcomputationalmethodsfortheanalysisofsinglecellatacseqdata
AT andreanitommaso assessmentofcomputationalmethodsfortheanalysisofsinglecellatacseqdata
AT vinyardmichaele assessmentofcomputationalmethodsfortheanalysisofsinglecellatacseqdata
AT garciasarap assessmentofcomputationalmethodsfortheanalysisofsinglecellatacseqdata
AT clementkendell assessmentofcomputationalmethodsfortheanalysisofsinglecellatacseqdata
AT andradenavarromiguela assessmentofcomputationalmethodsfortheanalysisofsinglecellatacseqdata
AT buenrostrojasond assessmentofcomputationalmethodsfortheanalysisofsinglecellatacseqdata
AT pinelloluca assessmentofcomputationalmethodsfortheanalysisofsinglecellatacseqdata