Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38609853›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2024

Split Pool Ligation-based Single-cell Transcriptome sequencing (SPLiT-seq) data processing pipeline comparison.

Lucas Kuijpers, Bastian Hornung, Mirjam C G N van den Hout-van Vroonhoven, Wilfred F J van IJcken, Frank Grosveld, Eskeatnaf Mulugeta

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Emerging tools to advance neuroethology in butterflies and moths.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucas KuijpersDepartment of Cell Biology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC), Wytemaweg 80, Rotterdam, 3015CN, The Netherlands. l.kuijpers@erasmusmc.nl.
Bastian HornungCenter for Biomics, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mirjam C G N van den Hout-van VroonhovenCenter for Biomics, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wilfred F J van IJckenCenter for Biomics, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Frank GrosveldDepartment of Cell Biology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC), Wytemaweg 80, Rotterdam, 3015CN, The Netherlands.
Eskeatnaf MulugetaDepartment of Cell Biology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC), Wytemaweg 80, Rotterdam, 3015CN, The Netherlands. e.mulugeta@erasmusmc.nl.
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-cell sequencing techniques are revolutionizing every field of biology by providing the ability to measure the abundance of biological molecules at a single-cell resolution. Although single-cell sequencing approaches have been developed for several molecular modalities, single-cell transcriptome sequencing is the most prevalent and widely applied technique. SPLiT-seq (split-pool ligation-based transcriptome sequencing) is one of these single-cell transcriptome techniques that applies a unique combinatorial-barcoding approach by splitting and pooling cells into multi-well plates containing barcodes. This unique approach required the development of dedicated computational tools to preprocess the data and extract the count matrices. Here we compare eight bioinformatic pipelines (alevin-fry splitp, LR-splitpipe, SCSit, splitpipe, splitpipeline, SPLiTseq-demultiplex, STARsolo and zUMI) that have been developed to process SPLiT-seq data. We provide an overview of the tools, their computational performance, functionality and impact on downstream processing of the single-cell data, which vary greatly depending on the tool used.

resultsWe show that STARsolo, splitpipe and alevin-fry splitp can all handle large amount of data within reasonable time. In contrast, the other five pipelines are slow when handling large datasets. When using smaller dataset, cell barcode results are similar with the exception of SPLiTseq-demultiplex and splitpipeline. LR-splitpipe that is originally designed for processing long-read sequencing data is the slowest of all pipelines. Alevin-fry produced different down-stream results that are difficult to interpret. STARsolo functions nearly identical to splitpipe and produce results that are highly similar to each other. However, STARsolo lacks the function to collapse random hexamer reads for which some additional coding is required.

conclusionOur comprehensive comparative analysis aids users in selecting the most suitable analysis tool for efficient SPLiT-seq data processing, while also detailing the specific prerequisites for each of these pipelines. From the available pipelines, we recommend splitpipe or STARSolo for SPLiT-seq data analysis.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyTranscriptomeData AnalysisCombinatorial barcodingData-preprocessingSingle cell RNA sequencingSplit-pool barcodingSPLiT-seq

Identifiers

PMID38609853
PMCPMC11010347
OpenAlexW4394757126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.