A benchmarking study of copy number variation inference methods using single-cell RNA-sequencing data
Xin Chen, Li Tai FangiD, Zhong CheniD, Wanqiu CheniD, Bin Zhu, Hongjin Wu, Malcolm C. MoosiD, Andrew A. FarmeriD, Feng ZengiD, Lijuan Song, Xiaowen Zhang, Wei XiongiD, Shusheng GongiD, Wendell D. JonesiD, Christopher E. MasoniD, Shixiu WuiD, Chunlin XiaoiD, Charles WangiD
Abstract
Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) has emerged as a powerful tool for cancer research, enabling in-depth characterization of tumor heterogeneity at the single-cell level. Recently, scRNA-seq copy number variation (scCNV) inference methods have been developed, expanding the application of scRNA-seq to study genetic heterogeneity in cancer using transcriptomic data. However, the fidelity of these methods has not been investigated systematically. In this study, we benchmarked five commonly used scCNV inference methods, HoneyBADGER, CopyKAT, CaSpER, inferCNV, and sciCNV. We evaluated their performance across four different scRNA-seq platforms derived data from a multicenter study. We further evaluated the scCNV performance using scRNA-seq datasets derived from mixed samples consisting of five human lung adenocarcinoma cell lines and generated a clinical scRNA-seq dataset from a human small cell lung cancer patient to validate our findings. Our evaluation criteria included sensitivity and specificity of CNV detection, and subclone identification from mixed cancer samples. We found that the sensitivity and specificity of the five scCNV inference methods varied, depending on the selection of reference data, sequencing depths, and read lengths. Overall, CopyKAT and CaSpER exhibited superior performance to other methods, while inferCNV, sciCNV, and CopyKAT outperformed other methods in subclone identification accuracy. Remarkably, inferCNV achieved high accuracy in subclone identification when using data from a "single scRNA-seq protocol", however, when applying these methods to a dataset derived from multiple scRNA-seq platforms from the mixed samples, we found that batch effects significantly affected the performance of subclone identification for most methods, except for HoneyBADGER. Our benchmarking study revealed the strengths and weaknesses of each of the five scCNV inference methods and provided guidance for selecting the optimal CNV inference method using scRNA-seq data.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 9
- FWCI
- 2.72
- Field percentile
- top 9%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
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.
Related papers
- Benchmarking scRNA-seq Copy Number Inference: A Comprehensive Evaluation and Practitioner Guide
Hung-Ching Chang, Yuxin Shi, … George C. Tseng·bioRxiv·Apr 15, 2026
- Benchmarking copy number aberrations inference tools using single-cell multi-omics datasets
Minfang Song, Shuai Ma, … Liye Zhang·Briefings in BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Feb 11, 2025
- Benchmarking scRNA-seq copy number variation callers
Katharina Schmid, Aikaterini Symeonidi, … Maria Colomé‐Tatché·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Oct 2, 2025
- Inferring copy number variation from gene expression data: methods, comparisons, and applications to oncology
Joseph Boen, Joel P. Wagner, Noemi Di Nanni·bioRxiv·Oct 18, 2021
- CNVeil enables accurate and robust tumor subclone identification and copy number estimation from single-cell DNA sequencing data
Weiman Yuan, Can Luo, … Xin Zhou·bioRxiv·Feb 21, 2024
- scRNA-seq mixology: towards better benchmarking of single cell RNA-seq analysis methods
Luyi Tian, Xueyi Dong, … Matthew E. Ritchie·Nature MethodsPeer-reviewed·May 27, 2019