ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Benchmarking of computational demultiplexing methods for single-nucleus RNA sequencing data.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ReadChop: a high-performance demultiplexer for long-read sequencing data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Methodologies for Sample Multiplexing and Computational Deconvolution in Single-Cell Sequencing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-Seq) has transformed our understanding of complex tissues, providing insights into cellular composition and heterogeneity in gene expression between cells, and their alterations in development and disease. High costs however constrain the number of samples analysed. Sample pooling and their demultiplexing following sequencing based on prior labelling with antibodies or lipid anchors conjugated to DNA barcodes (cell hashing and MULTI-seq), or using genetic differences between samples, provides a solution. However, there remains no comprehensive evaluation of these demultiplexing tools to guide selection between them. Here, we benchmark the leading software (Vireo, Souporcell, Freemuxlet, scSplit) used for sample demultiplexing using genetic variants. We further compared obtaining genetic variants from SNP array analysis of gDNA and from sample-matched bulk-RNA-Seq data, identified using three different variant calling tools (BCFtools, cellSNP, FreeBayes). Demultiplexing performance was evaluated on simulated multiplexed datasets comprising two, four, and six samples with doublet percentages between 0% and 30%, and validated against demultiplexing using sex-linked genes. Software implementation and execution were evaluated by run speed, robustness, scalability, and usability. Our results show that all tools excluding scSplit provide high recall and precision with an accuracy of 80%-85%. Vireo achieved the best accuracy. Demultiplexing tools were differentially affected by the variant calling tool with which it was paired. For all tools, accuracy decreased with the increasing percentage of doublets. Deployment of demultiplexing during analysis of pooled real-world 10x RNA-Seq data from the human heart and from different species is shown, as are advantages for doublet detection and removal.
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.