Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40903792›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2025

Comparative benchmarking of single-cell clustering algorithms for transcriptomic and proteomic data.

Yu-Hang Yin, Fang Wang, Wei Li, Qiaoming Liu, Shengming Zhou, Murong Zhou, Zhongjun Jiang, Dong-Jun Yu, Guohua Wang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors.

Yu-Hang Yin *College of Life Science, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, China.
Fang Wang *The Quzhou Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Quzhou People's Hospital, Quzhou, 324000, China. yafangwang163@163.com.
Wei LiCollege of Artificial Intelligence, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300350, China.
Qiaoming LiuCollege of Artificial Intelligence, Henan University, Zhengzhou, 450046, China.
Shengming ZhouCollege of Life Science, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, China.
Murong ZhouCollege of Life Science, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, China.
Zhongjun JiangCollege of Life Science, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, China.
Dong-Jun YuSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, China.
Guohua WangCollege of Computer and Control Engineering, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, China. ghwang@nefu.edu.cn.

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities 2572024AW30National Natural Science Foundation of China 32400546National Natural Science Foundation of China 62450112National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars 62225109
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferences in data distribution, feature dimensions, and quality between different single-cell modalities pose challenges for clustering. Although clustering algorithms have been developed for single-cell transcriptomic or proteomic data, their performance across different omics data types and integration scenarios remains poorly investigated, which limits the selection of methods and future method development.

resultsIn this study, we conduct a systematic and comparative benchmark analysis of 28 computational algorithms on 10 paired transcriptomic and proteomic datasets, evaluating their performance across various metrics in terms of clustering, peak memory, and running time. We also discuss the impact of highly variable genes (HVGs) and cell type granularity on clustering performance. Additionally, the robustness of these clustering methods on two kinds of omics is evaluating by using 30 simulated datasets. Furthermore, to explore the benefits of integrating omics information for clustering tasks, we integrate single-cell transcriptomic and proteomic data using 7 state-of-the-art integration methods and assess the performance of existing single-omics clustering schemes on the integrated features.

conclusionsOur findings reveal modality-specific strengths and limitations, highlight the complementary nature of existing methods, and provide actionable insights to guide the selection of appropriate clustering approaches for specific scenarios. Overall, for top performance across two omics, consider scAIDE, scDCC, and FlowSOM, with FlowSOM also offering excellent robustness. For users prioritizing memory efficiency scDCC and scDeepCluster are recommended, while TSCAN, SHARP, and MarkovHC are recommended for users who prioritize time efficiency, and community detection-based methods offer a balance.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGene Expression ProfilingProteomicsSingle-Cell AnalysisTranscriptomeBenchmarkingCluster AnalysisClustering AlgorithmsHumansFeature integrationProteomicsSingle-cell clusteringTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID40903792
PMCPMC12406447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.