Back

Systematic Evaluation of Cell Type Deconvolution Methods for Plasma Cell-free DNA

Sun, T.; Yuan, J.; Zhu, Y.; Yang, S.; Zhou, J.; Ge, X.; Qu, S.; Li, W.; Li, J. J.; Li, Y.

2024-03-29 bioinformatics
10.1101/2024.03.25.586507 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is derived from cellular death in various tissues. Investigating the origin of cfDNA through tissue/cell type deconvolution allows us to detect changes in tissue homeostasis that occur during disease progression or in response to treatment. Consequently, cfDNA has emerged as a valuable noninvasive biomarker for disease detection and treatment monitoring. Although there are numerous methylation-based methods of cfDNA cell type deconvolution available, a comprehensive and systematic evaluation of these methods has yet to be conducted. In this study, we thoroughly benchmarked five previously published methods: MethAtlas, cfNOMe, CelFiE, CelFEER, and UXM. Utilizing deep whole-genome bisulfite sequencing data from 35 human cell types, we generated cfDNA mixtures with known ground truth to assess the deconvolution performance under various scenarios. Our findings indicate that different factors, including sequencing depth, reference marker selection, and reference completeness, influence cell type deconvolution performance. Notably, omitting cell types present in a mixture from the reference leads to suboptimal results. Despite each method exhibited distinct performances under various scenarios, CelFEER and UXM exhibit overall superior performance compared to the others. In summary, we comprehensively evaluated factors influencing methylation-based cfDNA cell type deconvolution and proposed general guidelines to maximize the performance.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.7%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.1%
3
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.1%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.7%
5
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
6
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.7%
7
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.2%
9
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
10
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.5%
11
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
12
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
13
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
15
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.7%
16
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
17
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
214 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
19
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.1%
20
Epigenetics
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
21
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Molecular Omics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
25
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.8%
26
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.7%
27
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
28
Forensic Science International: Genetics
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
29
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
158 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%