A benchmarking study of copy number variation inference methods using single-cell RNA-sequencing data
Xin Chen,Li Tai Fang,Zhong Chen,Wanqiu Chen,Bin Zhu,Hongjin Wu,Malcolm Moos Jr,Andrew Farmer,Feng Zeng,Lijuan Song,Xiaowen Zhang,Wei Xiong,Shusheng Gong,Wendell Jones,Christopher E Mason,Shixiu Wu,Chunlin Xiao,Charles Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.09.612120
2024-09-14
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.
Bioinformatics