ArticleBMC genomics2024
Comparative transcriptomic analyses of thymocytes using 10x Genomics and Parse scRNA-seq technologies.
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 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The challenges of single cell transcriptomics on difficult human tissue: the placenta.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Immune profiling of T cells: A comparative analysis of single-cell TCR sequencing using 10X Genomics and Parse Biosciences platforms.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Immune cell annotation in the single-cell studies: technologies, challenges, and integrative solutions.Immunologic research · 2026Review
- Single-cell expression QTL analyses of the human cerebellum reveal vulnerability of oligodendrocytes in essential tremor.Nature genetics · 2026Article
- Single-Cell Profiling of Splenic Immune Ageing and Chronic Stress Adaptations in Mice With Natural Microbiota.European journal of immunology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the practical aspects and performance of commercial single-cell RNA sequencing technologies.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSingle-cell RNA sequencing experiments commonly use 10x Genomics (10x) kits due to their high-throughput capacity and standardized protocols. Recently, Parse Biosciences (Parse) introduced an alternative technology that uses multiple in-situ barcoding rounds within standard 96-well plates. Parse enables the analysis of more cells from multiple samples in a single run without the need for additional reagents or specialized microfluidics equipment. To evaluate the performance of both platforms, we conducted a benchmark study using biological and technical replicates of mouse thymus as a complex immune tissue.
resultsWe found that Parse detected nearly twice the number of genes compared to 10x, with each platform detecting a distinct set of genes. The comparison of multiplexed samples generated from 10x and Parse techniques showed 10x data to have lower technical variability and more precise annotation of biological states in the thymus compared to Parse.
conclusionOur results provide a comprehensive comparison of the suitability of both single-cell platforms for immunological studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.