ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Systematic benchmarking and optimal strategy selection of cross-species integration methods.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Single-cell RNA sequencing provides an unprecedented resolution for cellular heterogeneity and gene regulation, fostering cross-species comparative analyses with increasing interspecies data. However, integrating single-cell transcriptomic data faces challenges, including gene selection, evolutionary distance, and batch effects, with varying method performances. We utilized single-cell transcriptomic data from hippocampal tissues of seven mammals (e.g. mouse, human), evaluating 13 mainstream integration methods across 27 tasks with 11 metrics. To compare the performance of different methods, we developed a machine learning-based scoring model that assesses the contribution of each metric in a data-driven manner, thereby addressing the oversimplified assumptions of traditional manual weighting approaches. Our findings show that selecting highly variable one-to-one orthologous genes best balances species differences and commonalities. Most methods integrated closely related species, whereas scVI, a probabilistic model with distributions specified by deep neural networks, and its semi‑supervised extension scANVI, as well as the Seurat v5 method, which uses reciprocal principal component analysis (RPCAv5), effectively mapped distantly related species. Increased species numbers reduce gene overlap and heighten heterogeneity, increasing integration difficulty. The scANVI best maintained quality by balancing the biological signals and batch effect removal. Furthermore, we established an evaluation website to guide researchers in selecting the optimal integration methods for cross-species single-cell transcriptomic data analysis. Collectively, our findings provide a systematic, evidence-based framework that can assist researchers in rapidly selecting appropriate integration methods for cross-species single-cell transcriptomic 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.