Cited by 296Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationAdvanced Clustering Algorithms Research

A systematic performance evaluation of clustering methods for single-cell RNA-seq data

Open access
Duò, Angelo, Robinson, Mark D., Soneson, Charlotte·2018·F1000Research

Abstract

Subpopulation identification, usually via some form of unsupervised clustering, is a fundamental step in the analysis of many single-cell RNA-seq data sets. This has motivated the development and application of a broad range of clustering methods, based on various underlying algorithms. Here, we provide a systematic and extensible performance evaluation of 14 clustering algorithms implemented in R, including both methods developed explicitly for scRNA-seq data and more general-purpose methods. The methods were evaluated using nine publicly available scRNA-seq data sets as well as three simulations with varying degree of cluster separability. The same feature selection approaches were used for all methods, allowing us to focus on the investigation of the performance of the clustering algorithms themselves. We evaluated the ability of recovering known subpopulations, the stability and the run time and scalability of the methods. Additionally, we investigated whether the performance could be improved by generating consensus partitions from multiple individual clustering methods. We found substantial differences in the performance, run time and stability between the methods, with SC3 and Seurat showing the most favorable results. Additionally, we found that consensus clustering typically did not improve the performance compared to the best of the combined methods, but that several of the top-performing methods already perform some type of consensus clustering. All the code used for the evaluation is available on GitHub ( https://github.com/markrobinsonuzh/scRNAseq_clustering_comparison ). In addition, an R package providing access to data and clustering results, thereby facilitating inclusion of new methods and data sets, is available from Bioconductor ( https://bioconductor.org/packages/DuoClustering2018 ).

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 · 10.12688/f1000research.15666.2

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Community detection based on graph modularity optimization via the Louvain algorithm works best for cluster identification.

    “Independent benchmarks5,50,51 showed that community detection based on graph modularity optimization via the Louvain algorithm works best for cluster identification.”

    From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [50]

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
Duò, A., Robinson, M. D., & Soneson, C.
Affiliations
SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
Corresponding author
Soneson, Charlotte
Venue
F1000Research
Published
2018-09-10
Volume
7
Pages
1141
ISSN
2046-1402 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2884197618
Cited by
296
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 2
FWCI
13.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • F1000Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (182828)
  • Swiss National Science Foundation (310030_175841)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Clustering Algorithms Research
Keywords
single-cell RNA sequencing, unsupervised clustering, clustering algorithm comparison, subpopulation identification, consensus clustering, Sc3+, Seurat, clustering stability, computational scalability, feature selection, simulated data

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