Benchmarking scRNA-seq copy number variation callers

Copy number variations (CNVs), the gain or loss of genomic regions, are associated with disease, especially cancer. Single cell technologies offer new possibilities to capture within-sample heterogeneity of CNVs and identify subclones relevant for tumor progression and treatment outcome. Several computational tools have been developed to identify CNVs from scRNA-seq data. However, an independent benchmarking of them is lacking. Here, we evaluate six popular methods in their ability to correctly identify ground truth CNVs, euploid cells and subclonal structures in 21 scRNA-seq datasets. We discover dataset-specific factors influencing the performance, including dataset size, the number and type of CNVs in the sample and the choice of the reference dataset. Methods which include allelic information perform more robustly for large droplet-based datasets, but require higher runtime. Furthermore, the methods differ in their additional functionalities. We offer a benchmarking pipeline to identify the optimal method for new datasets, and improve methods' performance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Communications
Published
2025-10-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-62359-9
Primary Topic
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Benchmarking scRNA-seq copy number variation callers

Aikaterini Symeonidi, Katharina Schmid, Andréa E. Tijhuis, Maria Colomé‐Tatché et al.
Nature Communications
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
article

Benchmarking scRNA-seq copy number variation callers

Aikaterini Symeonidi, Katharina Schmid, Andréa E. Tijhuis, Maria Colomé‐Tatché, Maria Lucia Richter, Floris Foijer, Dmytro Hlushchenko
article en

Abstract

Copy number variations (CNVs), the gain or loss of genomic regions, are associated with disease, especially cancer. Single cell technologies offer new possibilities to capture within-sample heterogeneity of CNVs and identify subclones relevant for tumor progression and treatment outcome. Several computational tools have been developed to identify CNVs from scRNA-seq data. However, an independent benchmarking of them is lacking. Here, we evaluate six popular methods in their ability to correctly identify ground truth CNVs, euploid cells and subclonal structures in 21 scRNA-seq datasets. We discover dataset-specific factors influencing the performance, including dataset size, the number and type of CNVs in the sample and the choice of the reference dataset. Methods which include allelic information perform more robustly for large droplet-based datasets, but require higher runtime. Furthermore, the methods differ in their additional functionalities. We offer a benchmarking pipeline to identify the optimal method for new datasets, and improve methods' performance.

Nature CommunicationsVol. 16(1)
Medigene (Germany) (DE), University Medical Center Groningen (NL), University of Groningen (NL), Center for Environmental Health (US), Helmholtz Zentrum München (DE), Hospital Del Mar (ES), Urologische Klinik München (DE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Benchmarking scRNA-seq copy number variation callers — Aikaterini Symeonidi, Katharina Schmid, et al. · Nature Communications (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS