Cited by 129Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

A multicenter study benchmarking single-cell RNA sequencing technologies using reference samples

Open access
Chen, Wanqiu, Zhao, Yongmei, Chen, Xin, Yang, Zhaowei, Xu, Xiaojiang, Bi, Yingtao, Chen, Vicky, Li, Jing +12 more·2021·Nature Biotechnology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Comparing diverse single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) datasets generated by different technologies and in different laboratories remains a major challenge. Here we address the need for guidance in choosing algorithms leading to accurate biological interpretations of varied data types acquired with different platforms. Using two well-characterized cellular reference samples (breast cancer cells and B cells), captured either separately or in mixtures, we compared different scRNA-seq platforms and several preprocessing, normalization and batch-effect correction methods at multiple centers. Although preprocessing and normalization contributed to variability in gene detection and cell classification, batch-effect correction was by far the most important factor in correctly classifying the cells. Moreover, scRNA-seq dataset characteristics (for example, sample and cellular heterogeneity and platform used) were critical in determining the optimal bioinformatic method. However, reproducibility across centers and platforms was high when appropriate bioinformatic methods were applied. Our findings offer practical guidance for optimizing platform and software selection when designing an scRNA-seq study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41587-020-00748-9

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent benchmark studies indicate that for simpler integration problems with low biological complexity and small batch effects, linear methods outperform nonlinear methods, while for complicated integration tasks with large biological complexity and bigger batch effects, nonlinear methods such as scVI/scanVI outperform others.

    “Recent benchmark studies indicate that for simpler integration problems with relatively low biological complexity and relatively small batch effects in scRNA-Seq datasets, linear methods outperform nonlinear, more complex methods136,137, while for complicated integration tasks with large biological complexity and bigger batch effects, nonlinear methods such as scVI/scanVI outperform others138.”

    From A high-resolution transcriptomic and spatial atlas of cell types in the whole mouse brain (2023) · cites this paper as [136]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, W., Zhao, Y., Chen, X., Yang, Z., Xu, X., Bi, Y., Chen, V., Li, J., Choi, H., Ernest, B., Tran, B., Mehta, M., Kumar, P., Farmer, A., Mir, A., Mehra, U. A., Li, J.-L., Moos, M., Xiao, W., & Wang, C.
Affiliations
  • Loma Linda University (US)
  • Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (US)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
  • AbbVie (United States) (US)
  • Takara (United States) (US)
  • Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
Corresponding author
  • Xiao, Wenming
  • Wang, Charles
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2020-12-21
Volume
39
Issue
9
Pages
1103-1114
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W3117537317
Cited by
114
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19
FWCI
4.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | NIH Office of the Director (S10OD019960)
  • Dr. Charles A. Sims’ gift to LLU Center for Genomics
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
single-cell RNA sequencing, benchmarking, reference samples, breast cancer cells, B cells, batch effect correction, normalization methods, preprocessing pipeline, cell classification, gene detection, platform comparison, cellular heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Algorithms, B-Lymphocytes, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Benchmarking, Gene Expression Profiling, Cell Line, Tumor, Single-Cell Analysis, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review