henhaobio
Sign in

Genome biologyBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article

Robustness and applicability of functional genomics tools on scRNA-seq data

Christian H. HollandiD, Jovan TanevskiiD, Jan GleixneriD, Manu P. KumariD, Elisabetta MereuiD, Javier Perales-PatóniD, Brian A. JoughiniD, Oliver StegleiD, Douglas A. LauffenburgeriD, Holger HeyniD, Bence SzalaiiD, Julio Sáez-RodrígueziD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Many tools have been developed to extract functional and mechanistic insight from bulk transcriptome profiling data. With the advent of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), it is in principle possible to do such an analysis for single cells. However, scRNA-seq data has characteristics such as drop-out events, low library sizes and a comparatively large number of samples/cells. It is thus not clear if functional genomics tools established for bulk sequencing can be applied to scRNA-seq in a meaningful way. To address this question, we performed benchmark studies on in silico and in vitro single-cell RNA-seq data. We included the bulk-RNA tools PROGENy, GO enrichment and DoRothEA that estimate pathway and transcription factor (TF) activities, respectively, and compared them against the tools AUCell and metaVIPER, designed for scRNA-seq. For the in silico study we simulated single cells from TF/pathway perturbation bulk RNA-seq experiments. Our simulation strategy guarantees that the information of the original perturbation is preserved while resembling the characteristics of scRNA-seq data. We complemented the in silico data with in vitro scRNA-seq data upon CRISPR-mediated knock-out. Our benchmarks on both the simulated and real data revealed comparable performance to the original bulk data. Additionally, we showed that the TF and pathway activities preserve cell-type specific variability by analysing a mixture sample sequenced with 13 scRNA-seq different protocols. Our analyses suggest that bulk functional genomics tools can be applied to scRNA-seq data, outperforming dedicated single cell tools. Furthermore we provide a benchmark for further methods development by the community.

Citations
323
FWCI
14.34
Field percentile
top 1%

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.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISWang '24Wenzel '24Franchini '23Zappia '18Frost '24Hou '20
62% semantic matchBioinformatics
Xi Wang, Qiwei Lian, Haoyu Dong+3 more·Genomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics·Feb 9, 2024· 7 citations