henhao
Sign in

Abstract

Spatial transcriptomics is a rapidly evolving field, overwhelmed by a multitude of technologies. This study aims to offer a comparative analysis of datasets generated from leading in situ imaging platforms. We have generated spatial transcriptomics data from serial sections of prostate adenocarcinoma using the 10x Genomics Xenium and NanoString CosMx SMI platforms. Additionally, orthogonal single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) was performed on the same FFPE tissue to establish a reference for the tumors transcriptional profiles. We assessed various technical aspects, such as reproducibility, sensitivity, dynamic range, cell segmentation, cell type annotation, and congruence with single-cell profiling. The practicality of assessing cellular organization and biomarker localization was evaluated. Although fewer genes are measured (CosMx: 960, Xenium: 377, with an overlap of 125), Xenium consistently demonstrates higher sensitivity, a broader dynamic range, and better alignment with single-cell reference profiles. Conversely, CosMxs out-of-the-box segmentation outperformed Xeniums, resulting in noticeable transcript misassignment in Xenium within certain tissue areas. However, the impact of this on the cells transcriptional profile was minimal. Together, this comprehensive comparison of two leading commercial platforms for spatial transcriptomics provides essential metrics for assessing their performance, offering invaluable insights for future research and technological advancements in this dynamic field.

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers

Abstract summary

Verified abstract synthesis

Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 18 Oct 2026 · from the abstract

Head-to-head on serial prostate adenocarcinoma sections: Xenium gave higher sensitivity, wider dynamic range and closer agreement with snRNA-seq; CosMx segmented cells better out of the box.

Imaging-based spatial transcriptomics is crowded with competing in situ technologies, which makes choosing a platform hard. Here both platforms are run on serial sections of the same prostate tumour, with snRNA-seq from the same FFPE material as a shared reference, so sensitivity, dynamic range, segmentation and cell type annotation can be weighed against one another on one specimen.

Key results

  1. SuggestedXenium detected transcripts more sensitively, spanned a wider dynamic range and matched the single-cell reference profiles better than CosMx, even though its panel is smaller.

    Panels were CosMx 960 genes and Xenium 377 genes with 125 genes in common; the sensitivity, dynamic range and reference-agreement comparisons are stated without values in the abstract. · Abstract

  2. SuggestedCosMx segmentation as delivered was the better of the two: Xenium showed visible transcript misassignment in some regions, though the resulting cell profiles changed little.

    Reported as out-of-the-box segmentation performance with noticeable misassignment confined to certain tissue areas and minimal effect on each cell's transcriptional profile; no segmentation accuracy metric is given. · Abstract

Methods, data and reproducibility

Serial sections of prostate adenocarcinoma were profiled with 10x Genomics Xenium and NanoString CosMx SMI, with snRNA-seq on the same FFPE tissue as an orthogonal reference. The comparison covered reproducibility, sensitivity, dynamic range, cell segmentation, cell type annotation and agreement with the single-cell profiles, plus how usable each platform is for cellular organisation and biomarker localisation.

  • Imaging-based spatial transcriptomics of prostate adenocarcinoma serial sections, 10x Genomics Xenium, 377-gene panel
  • Imaging-based spatial transcriptomics of the same serial sections, NanoString CosMx SMI, 960-gene panel (125 genes shared with Xenium)
  • snRNA-seq reference generated from the same FFPE tissue
Methods & tools
10x Genomics Xenium, NanoString CosMx SMI, snRNA-seq
Limitations (2)
  • The comparison rests on one tumour type, prostate adenocarcinoma, profiled from serial sections of the same FFPE material, so platform differences could be specific to this tissue, this block or these panel designs. · noted in this summary
  • No values are reported in the abstract for sensitivity, dynamic range, reproducibility or segmentation accuracy, and the two panels share only 125 genes, which limits how much of the comparison can be made gene by gene. · noted in this summary

Who should read:Read this if you are choosing between Xenium and CosMx for FFPE tissue and need to know how panel size, detection sensitivity and out-of-the-box segmentation trade off.

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.