CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 220Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of clustering tools in R for medium-sized 10x Genomics single-cell RNA-sequencing data

Open access
Freytag, Saskia, Tian, Luyi, Lönnstedt, Ingrid, Ng, Milica, Bahlo, Melanie·2018·F1000Research
DOI 10.12688/f1000research.15809.1PMC PMC6124389

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The commercially available 10x Genomics protocol to generate droplet-based single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) data is enjoying growing popularity among researchers. Fundamental to the analysis of such scRNA-seq data is the ability to cluster similar or same cells into non-overlapping groups. Many competing methods have been proposed for this task, but there is currently little guidance with regards to which method to use. Methods: Here we use one gold standard 10x Genomics dataset, generated from the mixture of three cell lines, as well as three silver standard 10x Genomics datasets generated from peripheral blood mononuclear cells to examine not only the accuracy but also robustness of a dozen methods. Results: We found that some methods, including Seurat and Cell Ranger, outperform other methods, although performance seems to be dependent on the complexity of the studied system. Furthermore, we found that solutions produced by different methods have little in common with each other. Conclusions: In light of this, we conclude that the choice of clustering tool crucially determines interpretation of scRNA-seq data generated by 10x Genomics. Hence practitioners and consumers should remain vigilant about the outcome of 10x Genomics scRNA-seq analysis.

Overview

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.15809.1

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Performance on the gold standard dataset. ( a) ARI_truth of each method with regards to the truth versus the number of clusters. The dashed line indicates the true number of clusters. ( b) Homogeneity of clusters of each method, given the truth.
Figure 1. Performance on the gold standard dataset. ( a) ARI_truth of each method with regards to the truth versus the number of clusters. The dashed line indicates the true number of clusters. ( b) Homogeneity of clusters of each method, given the truth.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. ARI_truth of each method in each dataset, as indicated by different shapes, with regards to the supervised cell labeling versus the number of clusters. The dashed line indicates the number of cell populations estimated by the supervised cell labeling approach. ( a) First evaluation with methods available in R 3.4.3. ( b) Second evaluation with methods available in R 3.5.0.
Figure 2. ARI_truth of each method in each dataset, as indicated by different shapes, with regards to the supervised cell labeling versus the number of clusters. The dashed line indicates the number of cell populations estimated by the supervised cell labeling approach. ( a) First evaluation with methods available in R 3.4.3. ( b) Second evaluation with methods available in R 3.5.0.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Homogeneity of clusters with regards to the inferred cell labeling for each method and each dataset. Different datasets are indicated by transparency. ( a) First evaluation with methods available in R 3.4.3. ( b) Second evaluation with methods available in R 3.5.0.
Figure 3. Homogeneity of clusters with regards to the inferred cell labeling for each method and each dataset. Different datasets are indicated by transparency. ( a) First evaluation with methods available in R 3.4.3. ( b) Second evaluation with methods available in R 3.5.0.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Similarity of all combinations of clustering methods as estimated by ARI_comp (lower triangle) and NMI (upper triangle) averaged over all datasets in ( a) evaluation 1 (R version 3.4.3) and ( b) evaluation 2 (R version 3.5.0). The similarity is indicated by the color; yellow indicating no similarity and purple indicating complete overlap. The diagonals give the average number of clusters estimated by each respective method. Note that methods are ordered according to similarity.
Figure 4. Similarity of all combinations of clustering methods as estimated by ARI_comp (lower triangle) and NMI (upper triangle) averaged over all datasets in ( a) evaluation 1 (R version 3.4.3) and ( b) evaluation 2 (R version 3.5.0). The similarity is indicated by the color; yellow indicating no similarity and purple indicating complete overlap. The diagonals give the average number of clusters estimated by each respective method. Note that methods are ordered according to similarity.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5. ( a) Tukey boxplots of ARI_comp results from the comparison of clustering solutions of the same method when cell input was varied in Dataset 5. ( b) Tukey boxplots of ARI_truth of clustering solutions of the same method when cell input was varied in Dataset 5. Results shown are for evaluation 2 (R version 3.5.0) for results of evaluation 1 (R version 3.4.3) see Supplementary Figure 4.
Figure 5. ( a) Tukey boxplots of ARI_comp results from the comparison of clustering solutions of the same method when cell input was varied in Dataset 5. ( b) Tukey boxplots of ARI_truth of clustering solutions of the same method when cell input was varied in Dataset 5. Results shown are for evaluation 2 (R version 3.5.0) for results of evaluation 1 (R version 3.4.3) see Supplementary Figure 4.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6. ( a) ARI_comp of clustering solutions on Dataset 4 using 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of the most expressed genes with respect to clustering Dataset 4 with all genes with the same method. ( b) ARI_truth of clustering solutions on Dataset 4 using 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of the most expressed genes. Note that many methods could not cluster the data when few genes were available. In particular, ascend did not run.
Figure 6. ( a) ARI_comp of clustering solutions on Dataset 4 using 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of the most expressed genes with respect to clustering Dataset 4 with all genes with the same method. ( b) ARI_truth of clustering solutions on Dataset 4 using 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of the most expressed genes. Note that many methods could not cluster the data when few genes were available. In particular, ascend did not run.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7. The bars indicate the average log10 run time (in seconds) of all 11 methods on Dataset 5 with 3,000 genes over 5 iterations.
Figure 7. The bars indicate the average log10 run time (in seconds) of all 11 methods on Dataset 5 with 3,000 genes over 5 iterations.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8. Radial plots describing the average effect of 5 cell features on the clustering solutions of different methods across the three silver standard datasets in evaluation 1 (R version 3.4.3). For every method and every feature the adjusted R 2 of the linear model fitting the feature by the clustering solution is presented.
Figure 8. Radial plots describing the average effect of 5 cell features on the clustering solutions of different methods across the three silver standard datasets in evaluation 1 (R version 3.4.3). For every method and every feature the adjusted R 2 of the linear model fitting the feature by the clustering solution is presented.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9. Summary of the performance of each method across all evaluations. Note that 1 refers to evaluation 1 (R version 3.4.3) and 2 refers to evaluation 2 (R version 3.5.0).
Figure 9. Summary of the performance of each method across all evaluations. Note that 1 refers to evaluation 1 (R version 3.4.3) and 2 refers to evaluation 2 (R version 3.5.0).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 220

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Freytag, S., Tian, L., Lönnstedt, I., Ng, M., & Bahlo, M.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Freytag, Saskia
ORCID
Venue
F1000Research
Publisher
F1000 Research Ltd
Published
2018-08-15
Volume
7
Pages
1297
ISSN
2046-1402 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.12688/f1000research.15809.1
PMC
PMC6124389
OpenAlex
W4251287806
Cited by
220
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 8
FWCI
10.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2018-12-19)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • F1000Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (IRIIS, ProgramGrant1054618, SeniorResearchFellowship110297)
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, cell clustering, 10x Genomics, clustering algorithm comparison, Seurat, Cell Ranger, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, method robustness, R package
MeSH terms
Leukocytes, Mononuclear, RNA, Software, Gene Expression Profiling, Genomics, Single-Cell Analysis

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