TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative analysis of dimension reduction methods for cytometry by time-of-flight data
AU - Wang, Kaiwen
AU - Yang, Yuqiu
AU - Wu, Fangjiang
AU - Song, Bing
AU - Wang, Xinlei
AU - Wang, Tao
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - While experimental and informatic techniques around single cell sequencing (scRNA-seq) are advanced, research around mass cytometry (CyTOF) data analysis has severely lagged behind. CyTOF data are notably different from scRNA-seq data in many aspects. This calls for the evaluation and development of computational methods specific for CyTOF data. Dimension reduction (DR) is one of the critical steps of single cell data analysis. Here, we benchmark the performances of 21 DR methods on 110 real and 425 synthetic CyTOF samples. We find that less well-known methods like SAUCIE, SQuaD-MDS, and scvis are the overall best performers. In particular, SAUCIE and scvis are well balanced, SQuaD-MDS excels at structure preservation, whereas UMAP has great downstream analysis performance. We also find that t-SNE (along with SQuad-MDS/t-SNE Hybrid) possesses the best local structure preservation. Nevertheless, there is a high level of complementarity between these tools, so the choice of method should depend on the underlying data structure and the analytical needs.
AB - While experimental and informatic techniques around single cell sequencing (scRNA-seq) are advanced, research around mass cytometry (CyTOF) data analysis has severely lagged behind. CyTOF data are notably different from scRNA-seq data in many aspects. This calls for the evaluation and development of computational methods specific for CyTOF data. Dimension reduction (DR) is one of the critical steps of single cell data analysis. Here, we benchmark the performances of 21 DR methods on 110 real and 425 synthetic CyTOF samples. We find that less well-known methods like SAUCIE, SQuaD-MDS, and scvis are the overall best performers. In particular, SAUCIE and scvis are well balanced, SQuaD-MDS excels at structure preservation, whereas UMAP has great downstream analysis performance. We also find that t-SNE (along with SQuad-MDS/t-SNE Hybrid) possesses the best local structure preservation. Nevertheless, there is a high level of complementarity between these tools, so the choice of method should depend on the underlying data structure and the analytical needs.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151345699&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85151345699&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41467-023-37478-w
DO - 10.1038/s41467-023-37478-w
M3 - Article
C2 - 37005472
AN - SCOPUS:85151345699
SN - 2041-1723
VL - 14
JO - Nature communications
JF - Nature communications
IS - 1
M1 - 1836
ER -