Systematic comparison of high-throughput single-cell RNA-seq methods for immune cell profiling.
High throughput sequencing
Immune-cell profiling
Single cell
Single-cell RNA-seq
Transcriptomics
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Jan 2021
20 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
04
09
2020
accepted:
27
12
2020
entrez:
21
1
2021
pubmed:
22
1
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Elucidation of immune populations with single-cell RNA-seq has greatly benefited the field of immunology by deepening the characterization of immune heterogeneity and leading to the discovery of new subtypes. However, single-cell methods inherently suffer from limitations in the recovery of complete transcriptomes due to the prevalence of cellular and transcriptional dropout events. This issue is often compounded by limited sample availability and limited prior knowledge of heterogeneity, which can confound data interpretation. Here, we systematically benchmarked seven high-throughput single-cell RNA-seq methods. We prepared 21 libraries under identical conditions of a defined mixture of two human and two murine lymphocyte cell lines, simulating heterogeneity across immune-cell types and cell sizes. We evaluated methods by their cell recovery rate, library efficiency, sensitivity, and ability to recover expression signatures for each cell type. We observed higher mRNA detection sensitivity with the 10x Genomics 5' v1 and 3' v3 methods. We demonstrate that these methods have fewer dropout events, which facilitates the identification of differentially-expressed genes and improves the concordance of single-cell profiles to immune bulk RNA-seq signatures. Overall, our characterization of immune cell mixtures provides useful metrics, which can guide selection of a high-throughput single-cell RNA-seq method for profiling more complex immune-cell heterogeneity usually found in vivo.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Elucidation of immune populations with single-cell RNA-seq has greatly benefited the field of immunology by deepening the characterization of immune heterogeneity and leading to the discovery of new subtypes. However, single-cell methods inherently suffer from limitations in the recovery of complete transcriptomes due to the prevalence of cellular and transcriptional dropout events. This issue is often compounded by limited sample availability and limited prior knowledge of heterogeneity, which can confound data interpretation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Here, we systematically benchmarked seven high-throughput single-cell RNA-seq methods. We prepared 21 libraries under identical conditions of a defined mixture of two human and two murine lymphocyte cell lines, simulating heterogeneity across immune-cell types and cell sizes. We evaluated methods by their cell recovery rate, library efficiency, sensitivity, and ability to recover expression signatures for each cell type. We observed higher mRNA detection sensitivity with the 10x Genomics 5' v1 and 3' v3 methods. We demonstrate that these methods have fewer dropout events, which facilitates the identification of differentially-expressed genes and improves the concordance of single-cell profiles to immune bulk RNA-seq signatures.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, our characterization of immune cell mixtures provides useful metrics, which can guide selection of a high-throughput single-cell RNA-seq method for profiling more complex immune-cell heterogeneity usually found in vivo.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33472597
doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-07358-4
pii: 10.1186/s12864-020-07358-4
pmc: PMC7818754
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
66Références
Anal Chem. 2009 Aug 15;81(16):6813-22
pubmed: 19601617
Nat Methods. 2013 Nov;10(11):1096-8
pubmed: 24056875
Genome Biol. 2019 Dec 23;20(1):296
pubmed: 31870423
J Am Chem Soc. 2016 Sep 7;138(35):11073-6
pubmed: 27478996
Nat Methods. 2018 Apr;15(4):255-261
pubmed: 29481549
Nat Methods. 2017 Apr;14(4):381-387
pubmed: 28263961
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):15-21
pubmed: 23104886
Immunity. 2019 May 21;50(5):1317-1334.e10
pubmed: 30979687
Nat Methods. 2014 Feb;11(2):163-6
pubmed: 24363023
Nat Protoc. 2014 Jan;9(1):171-81
pubmed: 24385147
Bioinformatics. 2014 Apr 1;30(7):923-30
pubmed: 24227677
Cell. 2015 May 21;161(5):1202-1214
pubmed: 26000488
Cell. 2018 Nov 1;175(4):998-1013.e20
pubmed: 30388456
Sci Data. 2019 Jul 24;6(1):131
pubmed: 31341169
Annu Rev Biophys. 2016 Jul 5;45:25-47
pubmed: 27145880
Mol Cell. 2017 Feb 16;65(4):631-643.e4
pubmed: 28212749
Bioinformatics. 2019 Aug 15;35(16):2865-2867
pubmed: 30590489
Mol Cell. 2019 Jan 3;73(1):130-142.e5
pubmed: 30472192
Genome Biol. 2019 Mar 22;20(1):63
pubmed: 30902100
BMC Genomics. 2017 Jul 7;18(1):519
pubmed: 28687070
Trends Genet. 2020 Apr;36(4):288-297
pubmed: 32035656
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Jun;38(6):747-755
pubmed: 32518403
Life Sci Alliance. 2020 Apr 8;3(5):
pubmed: 32269069
Cell. 2020 Apr 16;181(2):442-459.e29
pubmed: 32302573
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Jun;38(6):737-746
pubmed: 32341560
Genome Biol. 2016 Apr 27;17:75
pubmed: 27122128
Nat Methods. 2019 Jan;16(1):59-62
pubmed: 30559431
BMC Genomics. 2018 Dec 24;19(1):960
pubmed: 30583719
Nat Methods. 2019 Jun;16(6):479-487
pubmed: 31133762
Cell. 2019 Jun 13;177(7):1888-1902.e21
pubmed: 31178118
Genome Biol. 2020 Mar 5;21(1):57
pubmed: 32138770
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jun;145(6):1615-1628
pubmed: 32035984
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Cell. 2017 Jun 15;169(7):1342-1356.e16
pubmed: 28622514
Genome Biol. 2015 Dec 10;16:278
pubmed: 26653891
Nat Commun. 2017 Jan 16;8:14049
pubmed: 28091601