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

Published version of a preprint

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

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?

  • Cluster co-membership alone cannot establish that two cell populations from different organs are the same or similar, because unbiased clustering may group unrelated cells.

    “Cluster co-membership alone, however, is insufficient to conclude that two cell populations from different organs represent the same or similar cell types; at any given resolution, unbiased clustering that groups related cells may also group unrelated cells21.”

    From Single-cell transcriptomics of 20 mouse organs creates a Tabula Muris (2018) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Results (Evaluation of clustering tools, Silver standard data; page unavailable) report that most clusters contained mixtures of different inferred cell types, supporting the caution that co-membership alone does not establish cell-type identity. The paper evaluates PBMC datasets, however, and does not test populations from different organs or establish that such populations were grouped together. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 [51]

  • Louvain has been shown to outperform other clustering methods for single-cell RNA-seq data, and flow and mass cytometry data.

    “It has been shown to outperform other clustering methods for single‐cell RNA‐seq data (Duò et al, 2018; Freytag et al, 2018), and flow and mass cytometry data (Weber & Robinson, 2016).”

    From Current best practices in single-cell RNA-seq analysis: a tutorial (2019) · cites this paper as Freytag et al, 2018

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Freytag, S., Tian, L., Lönnstedt, I., Ng, M., & Bahlo, M.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Freytag, Saskia
Venue
F1000Research
Published
2018-08-15
Volume
7
Pages
1297
ISSN
2046-1402 (ISSN-L)
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
Open access
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