Benchmarking bulk and single-cell variant-calling approaches on Chromium scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single-cell sequencing methodologies such as scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq have become widespread and effective tools to interrogate tissue composition. Increasingly, variant callers are being applied to these methodologies to resolve the genetic heterogeneity of a sample, especially in the case of detecting the clonal architecture of a tumor. Typically, traditional bulk DNA variant callers are applied to the pooled reads of a single-cell library to detect candidate mutations. Recently, multiple studies have applied such callers on reads from individual cells, with some citing the ability to detect rare variants with higher sensitivity. Many studies apply these two approaches to the Chromium (10x Genomics) scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq methodologies. However, Chromium-based libraries may offer additional challenges to variant calling compared with existing single-cell methodologies, raising questions regarding the validity of variants obtained from such a workflow. To determine the merits and challenges of various variant-calling approaches on Chromium scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq libraries, we use sample libraries with matched bulk whole-genome sequencing to evaluate the performance of callers. We review caller performance, finding that bulk callers applied on pooled reads significantly outperform individual-cell approaches. We also evaluate variants unique to scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq methodologies, finding patterns of noise but also potential capture of RNA-editing events. Finally, we review the notion that variant calling at the single-cell level can detect rare somatic variants, providing empirical results that suggest resolving such variants is infeasible in single-cell Chromium libraries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".