Cargando…
Benchmarking UMI-based single-cell RNA-seq preprocessing workflows
BACKGROUND: Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) technologies and associated analysis methods have rapidly developed in recent years. This includes preprocessing methods, which assign sequencing reads to genes to create count matrices for downstream analysis. While several packaged preprocessing w...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8672463/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34906205 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02552-3 |
_version_ | 1784615358678695936 |
---|---|
author | You, Yue Tian, Luyi Su, Shian Dong, Xueyi Jabbari, Jafar S. Hickey, Peter F. Ritchie, Matthew E. |
author_facet | You, Yue Tian, Luyi Su, Shian Dong, Xueyi Jabbari, Jafar S. Hickey, Peter F. Ritchie, Matthew E. |
author_sort | You, Yue |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) technologies and associated analysis methods have rapidly developed in recent years. This includes preprocessing methods, which assign sequencing reads to genes to create count matrices for downstream analysis. While several packaged preprocessing workflows have been developed to provide users with convenient tools for handling this process, how they compare to one another and how they influence downstream analysis have not been well studied. RESULTS: Here, we systematically benchmark the performance of 10 end-to-end preprocessing workflows (Cell Ranger, Optimus, salmon alevin, alevin-fry, kallisto bustools, dropSeqPipe, scPipe, zUMIs, celseq2, and scruff) using datasets yielding different biological complexity levels generated by CEL-Seq2 and 10x Chromium platforms. We compare these workflows in terms of their quantification properties directly and their impact on normalization and clustering by evaluating the performance of different method combinations. While the scRNA-seq preprocessing workflows compared vary in their detection and quantification of genes across datasets, after downstream analysis with performant normalization and clustering methods, almost all combinations produce clustering results that agree well with the known cell type labels that provided the ground truth in our analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the choice of preprocessing method was found to be less important than other steps in the scRNA-seq analysis process. Our study comprehensively compares common scRNA-seq preprocessing workflows and summarizes their characteristics to guide workflow users. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s13059-021-02552-3). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8672463 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86724632021-12-15 Benchmarking UMI-based single-cell RNA-seq preprocessing workflows You, Yue Tian, Luyi Su, Shian Dong, Xueyi Jabbari, Jafar S. Hickey, Peter F. Ritchie, Matthew E. Genome Biol Research BACKGROUND: Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) technologies and associated analysis methods have rapidly developed in recent years. This includes preprocessing methods, which assign sequencing reads to genes to create count matrices for downstream analysis. While several packaged preprocessing workflows have been developed to provide users with convenient tools for handling this process, how they compare to one another and how they influence downstream analysis have not been well studied. RESULTS: Here, we systematically benchmark the performance of 10 end-to-end preprocessing workflows (Cell Ranger, Optimus, salmon alevin, alevin-fry, kallisto bustools, dropSeqPipe, scPipe, zUMIs, celseq2, and scruff) using datasets yielding different biological complexity levels generated by CEL-Seq2 and 10x Chromium platforms. We compare these workflows in terms of their quantification properties directly and their impact on normalization and clustering by evaluating the performance of different method combinations. While the scRNA-seq preprocessing workflows compared vary in their detection and quantification of genes across datasets, after downstream analysis with performant normalization and clustering methods, almost all combinations produce clustering results that agree well with the known cell type labels that provided the ground truth in our analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the choice of preprocessing method was found to be less important than other steps in the scRNA-seq analysis process. Our study comprehensively compares common scRNA-seq preprocessing workflows and summarizes their characteristics to guide workflow users. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s13059-021-02552-3). BioMed Central 2021-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8672463/ /pubmed/34906205 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02552-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research You, Yue Tian, Luyi Su, Shian Dong, Xueyi Jabbari, Jafar S. Hickey, Peter F. Ritchie, Matthew E. Benchmarking UMI-based single-cell RNA-seq preprocessing workflows |
title | Benchmarking UMI-based single-cell RNA-seq preprocessing workflows |
title_full | Benchmarking UMI-based single-cell RNA-seq preprocessing workflows |
title_fullStr | Benchmarking UMI-based single-cell RNA-seq preprocessing workflows |
title_full_unstemmed | Benchmarking UMI-based single-cell RNA-seq preprocessing workflows |
title_short | Benchmarking UMI-based single-cell RNA-seq preprocessing workflows |
title_sort | benchmarking umi-based single-cell rna-seq preprocessing workflows |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8672463/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34906205 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02552-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT youyue benchmarkingumibasedsinglecellrnaseqpreprocessingworkflows AT tianluyi benchmarkingumibasedsinglecellrnaseqpreprocessingworkflows AT sushian benchmarkingumibasedsinglecellrnaseqpreprocessingworkflows AT dongxueyi benchmarkingumibasedsinglecellrnaseqpreprocessingworkflows AT jabbarijafars benchmarkingumibasedsinglecellrnaseqpreprocessingworkflows AT hickeypeterf benchmarkingumibasedsinglecellrnaseqpreprocessingworkflows AT ritchiematthewe benchmarkingumibasedsinglecellrnaseqpreprocessingworkflows |