Cargando…
Systematic comparative analysis of single-nucleotide variant detection methods from single-cell RNA sequencing data
BACKGROUND: Systematic interrogation of single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) is one of the most promising approaches to delineate the cellular heterogeneity and phylogenetic relationships at the single-cell level. While SNV detection from abundant single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data is applicab...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6862814/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31744515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1863-4 |
_version_ | 1783471638322348032 |
---|---|
author | Liu, Fenglin Zhang, Yuanyuan Zhang, Lei Li, Ziyi Fang, Qiao Gao, Ranran Zhang, Zemin |
author_facet | Liu, Fenglin Zhang, Yuanyuan Zhang, Lei Li, Ziyi Fang, Qiao Gao, Ranran Zhang, Zemin |
author_sort | Liu, Fenglin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Systematic interrogation of single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) is one of the most promising approaches to delineate the cellular heterogeneity and phylogenetic relationships at the single-cell level. While SNV detection from abundant single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data is applicable and cost-effective in identifying expressed variants, inferring sub-clones, and deciphering genotype-phenotype linkages, there is a lack of computational methods specifically developed for SNV calling in scRNA-seq. Although variant callers for bulk RNA-seq have been sporadically used in scRNA-seq, the performances of different tools have not been assessed. RESULTS: Here, we perform a systematic comparison of seven tools including SAMtools, the GATK pipeline, CTAT, FreeBayes, MuTect2, Strelka2, and VarScan2, using both simulation and scRNA-seq datasets, and identify multiple elements influencing their performance. While the specificities are generally high, with sensitivities exceeding 90% for most tools when calling homozygous SNVs in high-confident coding regions with sufficient read depths, such sensitivities dramatically decrease when calling SNVs with low read depths, low variant allele frequencies, or in specific genomic contexts. SAMtools shows the highest sensitivity in most cases especially with low supporting reads, despite the relatively low specificity in introns or high-identity regions. Strelka2 shows consistently good performance when sufficient supporting reads are provided, while FreeBayes shows good performance in the cases of high variant allele frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend SAMtools, Strelka2, FreeBayes, or CTAT, depending on the specific conditions of usage. Our study provides the first benchmarking to evaluate the performances of different SNV detection tools for scRNA-seq data. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6862814 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68628142019-11-29 Systematic comparative analysis of single-nucleotide variant detection methods from single-cell RNA sequencing data Liu, Fenglin Zhang, Yuanyuan Zhang, Lei Li, Ziyi Fang, Qiao Gao, Ranran Zhang, Zemin Genome Biol Research BACKGROUND: Systematic interrogation of single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) is one of the most promising approaches to delineate the cellular heterogeneity and phylogenetic relationships at the single-cell level. While SNV detection from abundant single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data is applicable and cost-effective in identifying expressed variants, inferring sub-clones, and deciphering genotype-phenotype linkages, there is a lack of computational methods specifically developed for SNV calling in scRNA-seq. Although variant callers for bulk RNA-seq have been sporadically used in scRNA-seq, the performances of different tools have not been assessed. RESULTS: Here, we perform a systematic comparison of seven tools including SAMtools, the GATK pipeline, CTAT, FreeBayes, MuTect2, Strelka2, and VarScan2, using both simulation and scRNA-seq datasets, and identify multiple elements influencing their performance. While the specificities are generally high, with sensitivities exceeding 90% for most tools when calling homozygous SNVs in high-confident coding regions with sufficient read depths, such sensitivities dramatically decrease when calling SNVs with low read depths, low variant allele frequencies, or in specific genomic contexts. SAMtools shows the highest sensitivity in most cases especially with low supporting reads, despite the relatively low specificity in introns or high-identity regions. Strelka2 shows consistently good performance when sufficient supporting reads are provided, while FreeBayes shows good performance in the cases of high variant allele frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend SAMtools, Strelka2, FreeBayes, or CTAT, depending on the specific conditions of usage. Our study provides the first benchmarking to evaluate the performances of different SNV detection tools for scRNA-seq data. BioMed Central 2019-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6862814/ /pubmed/31744515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1863-4 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 Liu, Fenglin Zhang, Yuanyuan Zhang, Lei Li, Ziyi Fang, Qiao Gao, Ranran Zhang, Zemin Systematic comparative analysis of single-nucleotide variant detection methods from single-cell RNA sequencing data |
title | Systematic comparative analysis of single-nucleotide variant detection methods from single-cell RNA sequencing data |
title_full | Systematic comparative analysis of single-nucleotide variant detection methods from single-cell RNA sequencing data |
title_fullStr | Systematic comparative analysis of single-nucleotide variant detection methods from single-cell RNA sequencing data |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic comparative analysis of single-nucleotide variant detection methods from single-cell RNA sequencing data |
title_short | Systematic comparative analysis of single-nucleotide variant detection methods from single-cell RNA sequencing data |
title_sort | systematic comparative analysis of single-nucleotide variant detection methods from single-cell rna sequencing data |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6862814/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31744515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1863-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liufenglin systematiccomparativeanalysisofsinglenucleotidevariantdetectionmethodsfromsinglecellrnasequencingdata AT zhangyuanyuan systematiccomparativeanalysisofsinglenucleotidevariantdetectionmethodsfromsinglecellrnasequencingdata AT zhanglei systematiccomparativeanalysisofsinglenucleotidevariantdetectionmethodsfromsinglecellrnasequencingdata AT liziyi systematiccomparativeanalysisofsinglenucleotidevariantdetectionmethodsfromsinglecellrnasequencingdata AT fangqiao systematiccomparativeanalysisofsinglenucleotidevariantdetectionmethodsfromsinglecellrnasequencingdata AT gaoranran systematiccomparativeanalysisofsinglenucleotidevariantdetectionmethodsfromsinglecellrnasequencingdata AT zhangzemin systematiccomparativeanalysisofsinglenucleotidevariantdetectionmethodsfromsinglecellrnasequencingdata |