
Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) technique has enabled detailed analysis of gene expression at the single cell level, enhancing the understanding of subtle mechanisms that underly pathologies and drug resistance. To derive such biological meaning from sequencing data in oncology, some critical processing must be performed, including identification of the tumor cells by markers and algorithms that infer copy number variations (CNVs). We compared the performance of sciCNV, InferCNV, CopyKAT and SCEVAN tools that identify tumor cells by inferring CNVs from scRNA-seq data. Sequencing data from Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients, adjacent and healthy tissues were analyzed, and the predicted tumor cells were compared to those identified by well-assessed PDAC markers. Results from InferCNV, CopyKAT and SCEVAN overlapped by less than 30% with InferCNV showing the highest sensitivity (0.72) and SCEVAN the highest specificity (0.75). We show that the predictions are highly dependent on the sample and the software used, and that they return so many false positives hence are of little use in verifying or filtering predictions made via tumor biomarkers. We highlight how critical this processing can be, warn against the blind use of these software and point out the great need for more reliable algorithms.
copy number variations (CNVs), QH301-705.5, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), Biology (General), single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), Article
copy number variations (CNVs), QH301-705.5, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), Biology (General), single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), Article
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
