Donor-specific, but not sex-specific, signatures dominate cell-type classification in lung scRNA-seq data

Transcriptomic differences between individuals and sexes are well-documented across tissues, affecting cell-type identity. Single-cell atlases often have skewed sex ratios or limited donor diversity, potentially leading to sex- or donor-biased annotations using automatic classification methods. This might cause models to exacerbate existing biases from their training data. We investigated this by varying the sex ratio in a training set and assessing a cell-type classifier’s performance on fixed single-sex test sets. To separate sex and donor effects, we ran the experiment with and without donor information. We found that differences between donors negatively impact classification, as evidenced by poorer performance on unseen donors. However, this is not primarily due to sex bias; the model classified male and female cells similarly well, even when trained on highly sex-skewed data. We also found that large sex-based abundance differences between cell types can confound performance interpretation, creating apparent sex-biased patterns. Our findings suggest that atlas creators and classifier developers must carefully consider donor-specific biases in scRNA-seq data.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
Published
2026-07-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrep.2026.102692
Primary Topic
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Donor-specific, but not sex-specific, signatures dominate cell-type classification in lung scRNA-seq data

Ahmed Mahfouz, Marcel Reinders, Nora Ghenciulescu
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
article

Donor-specific, but not sex-specific, signatures dominate cell-type classification in lung scRNA-seq data

Ahmed Mahfouz, Marcel Reinders, Nora Ghenciulescu
article en

Abstract

Transcriptomic differences between individuals and sexes are well-documented across tissues, affecting cell-type identity. Single-cell atlases often have skewed sex ratios or limited donor diversity, potentially leading to sex- or donor-biased annotations using automatic classification methods. This might cause models to exacerbate existing biases from their training data. We investigated this by varying the sex ratio in a training set and assessing a cell-type classifier’s performance on fixed single-sex test sets. To separate sex and donor effects, we ran the experiment with and without donor information. We found that differences between donors negatively impact classification, as evidenced by poorer performance on unseen donors. However, this is not primarily due to sex bias; the model classified male and female cells similarly well, even when trained on highly sex-skewed data. We also found that large sex-based abundance differences between cell types can confound performance interpretation, creating apparent sex-biased patterns. Our findings suggest that atlas creators and classifier developers must carefully consider donor-specific biases in scRNA-seq data.

Biochemistry and Biophysics ReportsVol. 47
Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre (NL), Center for Human Genetics (US), Institute of Human Genetics (PL)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
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.

Donor-specific, but not sex-specific, signatures dominate cell-type classification in lung scRNA-seq data — Ahmed Mahfouz, Marcel Reinders, et al. · Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS