Wang Yuge, Sun Xingzhi, Zhao Hongyu
Department of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, United States.
Department of Statistics and Data Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Front Genet. 2022 Dec 13;13:1063233. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1063233. eCollection 2022.
As single-cell chromatin accessibility profiling methods advance, scATAC-seq has become ever more important in the study of candidate regulatory genomic regions and their roles underlying developmental, evolutionary, and disease processes. At the same time, cell type annotation is critical in understanding the cellular composition of complex tissues and identifying potential novel cell types. However, most existing methods that can perform automated cell type annotation are designed to transfer labels from an annotated scRNA-seq data set to another scRNA-seq data set, and it is not clear whether these methods are adaptable to annotate scATAC-seq data. Several methods have been recently proposed for label transfer from scRNA-seq data to scATAC-seq data, but there is a lack of benchmarking study on the performance of these methods. Here, we evaluated the performance of five scATAC-seq annotation methods on both their classification accuracy and scalability using publicly available single-cell datasets from mouse and human tissues including brain, lung, kidney, PBMC, and BMMC. Using the BMMC data as basis, we further investigated the performance of these methods across different data sizes, mislabeling rates, sequencing depths and the number of cell types unique to scATAC-seq. Bridge integration, which is the only method that requires additional multimodal data and does not need gene activity calculation, was overall the best method and robust to changes in data size, mislabeling rate and sequencing depth. Conos was the most time and memory efficient method but performed the worst in terms of prediction accuracy. scJoint tended to assign cells to similar cell types and performed relatively poorly for complex datasets with deep annotations but performed better for datasets only with major label annotations. The performance of scGCN and Seurat v3 was moderate, but scGCN was the most time-consuming method and had the most similar performance to random classifiers for cell types unique to scATAC-seq.
随着单细胞染色质可及性分析方法的不断进步,scATAC-seq在候选调控基因组区域及其在发育、进化和疾病过程中的作用研究中变得越来越重要。与此同时,细胞类型注释对于理解复杂组织的细胞组成和识别潜在的新型细胞类型至关重要。然而,大多数现有的能够进行自动细胞类型注释的方法是为了将标签从一个注释好的scRNA-seq数据集转移到另一个scRNA-seq数据集,目前尚不清楚这些方法是否适用于注释scATAC-seq数据。最近已经提出了几种从scRNA-seq数据到scATAC-seq数据进行标签转移的方法,但缺乏对这些方法性能的基准研究。在这里,我们使用来自小鼠和人类组织(包括脑、肺、肾、外周血单核细胞和骨髓肥大细胞)的公开可用单细胞数据集,评估了五种scATAC-seq注释方法在分类准确性和可扩展性方面的性能。以骨髓肥大细胞数据为基础,我们进一步研究了这些方法在不同数据大小、错误标记率、测序深度以及scATAC-seq特有的细胞类型数量方面的性能。Bridge integration是唯一一种需要额外多组学数据且不需要计算基因活性的方法,总体上是最好的方法,并且对数据大小、错误标记率和测序深度的变化具有鲁棒性。Conos是最节省时间和内存的方法,但在预测准确性方面表现最差。scJoint倾向于将细胞分配到相似的细胞类型,对于具有深度注释的复杂数据集表现相对较差,但对于仅具有主要标签注释的数据集表现较好。scGCN和Seurat v3的性能中等,但scGCN是最耗时的方法,并且对于scATAC-seq特有的细胞类型,其性能与随机分类器最为相似。