Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40702707›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025

Benchmarking of computational demultiplexing methods for single-nucleus RNA sequencing data.

Yile Fu, Mohamad Youness, Alessia Virzì, Xinran Song, Michiel R L Tubeeckx, Gilles W De Keulenaer, Hein Heidbuchel, Vincent F M Segers, Karin R Sipido, Bernard Thienpont and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Yile FuLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0615-1152
Mohamad YounessLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Alessia VirzìLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Xinran SongLaboratory for Functional Epigenetics, Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Michiel R L TubeeckxLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, Universiteitsplein 1, Building T (2nd Floor), 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.
Gilles W De KeulenaerLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, Universiteitsplein 1, Building T (2nd Floor), 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.
Hein HeidbuchelResearch Group Cardiovascular Diseases, GENCOR, University of Antwerp, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9301-8127
Vincent F M SegersLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, Universiteitsplein 1, Building T (2nd Floor), 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.
Karin R SipidoLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Bernard ThienpontLaboratory for Functional Epigenetics, Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
H Llewelyn RoderickLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

BOF 20-VLIR-iBOF-027China Scholarship CouncilFWO, Research Foundation - Flanders G0C7319NKU Leuven C14/21/093
6 · The paper itself

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

Cell NucleusComputational BiologySequence Analysis, RNASingle-Cell AnalysisSoftwareBenchmarkingHumansPolymorphism, Single Nucleotidedonor demultiplexinggenetic variationsnRNA-Seq

Identifiers

PMID40702707
PMCPMC12286777

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.