Gene length is a pivotal feature to explain disparities in transcript capture between single transcriptome techniques
The scale and capability of single-cell and single-nucleus RNA-sequencing technologies are rapidly growing, enabling key discoveries and large-scale cell mapping operations. However, studies directly comparing technical differences between single-cell and single-nucleus RNA sequencing are still lack...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023-04-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Bioinformatics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2023.1144266/full |
| _version_ | 1797848075203510272 |
|---|---|
| author | Ricardo R. Pavan Fabiola Diniz Samir El-Dahr Giovane G. Tortelote |
| author_facet | Ricardo R. Pavan Fabiola Diniz Samir El-Dahr Giovane G. Tortelote |
| author_sort | Ricardo R. Pavan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The scale and capability of single-cell and single-nucleus RNA-sequencing technologies are rapidly growing, enabling key discoveries and large-scale cell mapping operations. However, studies directly comparing technical differences between single-cell and single-nucleus RNA sequencing are still lacking. Here, we compared three paired single-cell and single-nucleus transcriptomes from three different organs (Heart, Lung and Kidney). Differently from previous studies that focused on cell classification, we explored disparities in the transcriptome output of whole cells relative to the nucleus. We found that the major cell clusters could be recovered by either technique from matched samples, but at different proportions. In 2/3 datasets (kidney and lung) we detected clusters exclusively present with single-nucleus RNA sequencing. In all three organ groups, we found that genomic and gene structural characteristics such as gene length and exon content significantly differed between the two techniques. Genes recovered with the single-nucleus RNA sequencing technique had longer sequence lengths and larger exon counts, whereas single-cell RNA sequencing captured short genes at higher rates. Furthermore, we found that when compared to the whole host genome (mouse for kidney and lung datasets and human for the heart dataset), single transcriptomes obtained with either technique skewed from the expected proportions in several points: a) coding sequence length, b) transcript length and c) genomic span; and d) distribution of genes based on exons counts. Interestingly, the top-100 DEG between the two techniques returned distinctive GO terms. Hence, the type of single transcriptome technique used affected the outcome of downstream analysis. In summary, our data revealed both techniques present disparities in RNA capture. Moreover, the biased RNA capture affected the calculations of basic cellular parameters, raising pivotal points about the limitations and advantages of either single transcriptome techniques. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T18:22:42Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ef25d0f0e99f48a3a81c6fd0e210dcaa |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2673-7647 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T18:22:42Z |
| publishDate | 2023-04-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Bioinformatics |
| spelling | doaj.art-ef25d0f0e99f48a3a81c6fd0e210dcaa2023-04-12T05:54:55ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Bioinformatics2673-76472023-04-01310.3389/fbinf.2023.11442661144266Gene length is a pivotal feature to explain disparities in transcript capture between single transcriptome techniquesRicardo R. Pavan0Fabiola Diniz1Samir El-Dahr2Giovane G. Tortelote3Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), Nubeena Crescent, Taroona, TAS, AustraliaSection of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United StatesSection of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United StatesSection of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United StatesThe scale and capability of single-cell and single-nucleus RNA-sequencing technologies are rapidly growing, enabling key discoveries and large-scale cell mapping operations. However, studies directly comparing technical differences between single-cell and single-nucleus RNA sequencing are still lacking. Here, we compared three paired single-cell and single-nucleus transcriptomes from three different organs (Heart, Lung and Kidney). Differently from previous studies that focused on cell classification, we explored disparities in the transcriptome output of whole cells relative to the nucleus. We found that the major cell clusters could be recovered by either technique from matched samples, but at different proportions. In 2/3 datasets (kidney and lung) we detected clusters exclusively present with single-nucleus RNA sequencing. In all three organ groups, we found that genomic and gene structural characteristics such as gene length and exon content significantly differed between the two techniques. Genes recovered with the single-nucleus RNA sequencing technique had longer sequence lengths and larger exon counts, whereas single-cell RNA sequencing captured short genes at higher rates. Furthermore, we found that when compared to the whole host genome (mouse for kidney and lung datasets and human for the heart dataset), single transcriptomes obtained with either technique skewed from the expected proportions in several points: a) coding sequence length, b) transcript length and c) genomic span; and d) distribution of genes based on exons counts. Interestingly, the top-100 DEG between the two techniques returned distinctive GO terms. Hence, the type of single transcriptome technique used affected the outcome of downstream analysis. In summary, our data revealed both techniques present disparities in RNA capture. Moreover, the biased RNA capture affected the calculations of basic cellular parameters, raising pivotal points about the limitations and advantages of either single transcriptome techniques.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2023.1144266/fullsingle-cell RNA sequencingsingle-nucleus RNA sequencingbioinformaticdata analysisbiased gene capturenext-generation sequencing |
| spellingShingle | Ricardo R. Pavan Fabiola Diniz Samir El-Dahr Giovane G. Tortelote Gene length is a pivotal feature to explain disparities in transcript capture between single transcriptome techniques Frontiers in Bioinformatics single-cell RNA sequencing single-nucleus RNA sequencing bioinformatic data analysis biased gene capture next-generation sequencing |
| title | Gene length is a pivotal feature to explain disparities in transcript capture between single transcriptome techniques |
| title_full | Gene length is a pivotal feature to explain disparities in transcript capture between single transcriptome techniques |
| title_fullStr | Gene length is a pivotal feature to explain disparities in transcript capture between single transcriptome techniques |
| title_full_unstemmed | Gene length is a pivotal feature to explain disparities in transcript capture between single transcriptome techniques |
| title_short | Gene length is a pivotal feature to explain disparities in transcript capture between single transcriptome techniques |
| title_sort | gene length is a pivotal feature to explain disparities in transcript capture between single transcriptome techniques |
| topic | single-cell RNA sequencing single-nucleus RNA sequencing bioinformatic data analysis biased gene capture next-generation sequencing |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2023.1144266/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ricardorpavan genelengthisapivotalfeaturetoexplaindisparitiesintranscriptcapturebetweensingletranscriptometechniques AT fabioladiniz genelengthisapivotalfeaturetoexplaindisparitiesintranscriptcapturebetweensingletranscriptometechniques AT samireldahr genelengthisapivotalfeaturetoexplaindisparitiesintranscriptcapturebetweensingletranscriptometechniques AT giovanegtortelote genelengthisapivotalfeaturetoexplaindisparitiesintranscriptcapturebetweensingletranscriptometechniques |