MMM
YYYY
Comparative analysis of NovaSeq 6000 and MGISEQ 2000 single-cell RNA sequencing data
NovaSeq 6000和MGISEQ 2000单细胞RNA测序数据的比较分析
NovaSeq 6000とMGISEQ 2000の単細胞RNAシーケンシングデータの比較分析
NovaSeq 6000 및 MGISEQ 2000 단세포 RNA 시퀀싱 데이터 비교 분석
Análisis comparativo de los datos de secuenciación de ARN unicelular de novaseq 6000 y mgiseq 2000
Analyse comparative des données de séquençage d'ARN unicellulaire novaseq 6000 et mgiseq 2000
Сравнительный анализ данных секвенирования одноклеточных РНК NovaSeq 6000 и MGISEQ 2000
Weiran Chen ¹, Md Wahiduzzaman ¹, Quan Li ¹ , Yixue Li 李亦学 ¹ ², Guangyong Zheng 郑广勇 ¹, Tao Huang 黄涛 ¹
¹ Bio-Med Big Data Center, Key Laboratory of Computational Biology, Shanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200031, China
中国 上海 中国科学院上海营养与健康研究所 计算生物学重点实验室 生物医学大数据中心
² School of Life Science, Hangzhou Institute for Advanced Study, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
中国 杭州 中国科学院大学 杭州高等研究院 生命与健康科学学院
Quantitative Biology, 15 December 2022
Abstract

Background

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) technology is now becoming a widely applied method of transcriptome exploration that helps to reveal cell-type composition as well as cell-state heterogeneity for specific biological processes. Distinct sequencing platforms and processing pipelines may contribute to various results even for the same sequencing samples. Therefore, benchmarking sequencing platforms and processing pipelines was considered as a necessary step to interpret scRNA-seq data. However, recent comparing efforts were constrained in sequencing platforms or analyzing pipelines. There is still a lack of knowledge of analyzing pipelines matched with specific sequencing platforms in aspects of sensitivity, precision, and so on.

Methods

We downloaded public scRNA-seq data that was generated by two distinct sequencers, NovaSeq 6000 and MGISEQ 2000. Then data was processed through the Drop-seq-tools, UMI-tools and Cell Ranger pipeline respectively. We calculated multiple measurements based on the expression profiles of the six platform-pipeline combinations.

Results

We found that all three pipelines had comparable performance, the Cell Ranger pipeline achieved the best performance in precision while UMI-tools prevailed in terms of sensitivity and marker calling.

Conclusions

Our work provided an insight into the selection of scRNA-seq data processing tools for two sequencing platforms as well as a framework to evaluate platform-pipeline combinations.
Quantitative Biology_1
Quantitative Biology_2
Quantitative Biology_3
Quantitative Biology_4
Reviews and Discussions
https://www.hotpaper.io/index.html
Robust measurement of orbital angular momentum of a partially coherent vortex beam under amplitude and phase perturbations
Deblurring, artifact-free optical coherence tomography with deconvolution-random phase modulation
Dynamic interactive bitwise meta-holography with ultra-high computational and display frame rates
Multi-dimensional multiplexing optical secret sharing framework with cascaded liquid crystal holograms
Physics-informed deep learning for fringe pattern analysis
Advancing computer-generated holographic display thanks to diffraction model-driven deep nets
Inverse design for material anisotropy and its application for a compact X-cut TFLN on-chip wavelength demultiplexer
Improved spatiotemporal resolution of anti-scattering super-resolution label-free microscopy via synthetic wave 3D metalens imaging
Wide-spectrum optical synthetic aperture imaging via spatial intensity interferometry
Flat soliton microcomb source
Smart palm-size optofluidic hematology analyzer for automated imaging-based leukocyte concentration detection
Deep learning enabled single-shot absolute phase recovery in high-speed composite fringe pattern profilometry of separated objects



Previous Article                                Next Article
About
|
Contact
|
Copyright © Hot Paper