Search

Appropriate ways to measure the similarity between single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) data are ubiquitous in bioinformatics, but using single clustering or classification methods to process scRNA-seq data is generally difficult. This has led to the emergence of integrated methods and tools that aim to automatically process specific problems associated with scRNA-seq data. These approaches have attracted a lot of interest in bioinformatics and related fields. In this paper, we systematically review the integrated methods and tools, highlighting the pros and cons of each approach. We not only pay particular attention to clustering and classification methods but also discuss methods that have emerged recently as powerful alternatives, including nonlinear and linear methods and descending dimension methods. Finally, we focus on clustering and classification methods for scRNA-seq data, in particular, integrated methods, and provide a comprehensive description of scRNA-seq data and download URLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in high-throughput sequencing on single-cell gene expressions [single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq)] have enabled transcriptome profiling on individual cells from complex samples. A common goal in scRNA-seq data analysis is to discover and characterise cell types, typically through clustering methods. The quality of the clustering therefore plays a critical role in biological discovery. While numerous clustering algorithms have been proposed for scRNA-seq data, fundamentally they all rely on a similarity metric for categorising individual cells. Although several studies have compared the performance of various clustering algorithms for scRNA-seq data, currently there is no benchmark of different similarity metrics and their influence on scRNA-seq data clustering. Here, we compared a panel of similarity metrics on clustering a collection of annotated scRNA-seq datasets. Within each dataset, a stratified subsampling procedure was applied and an array of evaluation measures was employed to assess the similarity metrics. This produced a highly reliable and reproducible consensus on their performance assessment. Overall, we found that correlation-based metrics (e.g. Pearson's correlation) outperformed distance-based metrics (e.g. Euclidean distance). To test if the use of correlation-based metrics can benefit the recently published clustering techniques for scRNA-seq data, we modified a state-of-the-art kernel-based clustering algorithm (SIMLR) using Pearson's correlation as a similarity measure and found significant performance improvement over Euclidean distance on scRNA-seq data clustering. These findings demonstrate the importance of similarity metrics in clustering scRNA-seq data and highlight Pearson's correlation as a favourable choice. Further comparison on different scRNA-seq library preparation protocols suggests that they may also affect clustering performance. Finally, the benchmarking framework is available at http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/SMS/bioinformatics/software.html. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]