Back

Characterizing and Mitigating Protocol-Dependent Gene Expression Bias in 3' and 5' Single-Cell RNA Sequencing

Shydlouskaya, V.; Haeryfar, S. M. M.; Andrews, T. S.

2026-03-03 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.02.28.708722 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has enabled large-scale characterization of cellular heterogeneity; yet, integrating datasets generated through different library preparation protocols remains challenging. For instance, comparisons between 10X Genomics 3' and 5' chemistries are complicated by protocol-dependent technical biases imposed by differences in transcript end capture and amplification. While normalization, and often batch correction, is an integral step in preprocessing scRNA-seq datasets, it remains unclear which correction is most appropriate, or even necessary, for reliable cross-protocol comparisons. Here, we systematically characterize protocol-related expression differences using 35 matched donors across six tissues profiled with both 3' and 5' scRNA-seq approaches. We find that gene expression discrepancies are not pervasive across the whole transcriptome, but driven instead by a relatively small, reproducible subset of protocol-biased genes. Excluding these genes improves cross-protocol concordance, indicating that most genes are directly comparable without aggressive correction. We then benchmark commonly employed normalization approaches and show that while several methods, such as fastMNN, improve statistical alignment when cell populations are well matched, they can distort gene-level signals and inflate differential expression in biologically realistic settings with incomplete cell-type overlap. Taken together, our results demonstrate that protocol bias between 3' and 5' scRNA-seq is limited in scope and that targeted handling of a small set of biased genes presents an alternative approach to normalization or batch correction strategies. This work provides a practical guideline for integrating 3' and 5' scRNA-seq data and highlights the importance of matching normalization strategies to the structure of technical variation and the intended downstream analyses.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.9%
2
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.0%
3
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
214 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
4
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.7%
5
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.7%
6
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.8%
7
Nature Biotechnology
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.2%
8
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.5%
9
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.5%
11
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
12
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.5%
13
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.7%
14
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.6%
15
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.0%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.8%
17
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
18
Life Science Alliance
263 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
19
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
20
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.6%
21
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
22
Nature Methods
336 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
23
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
24
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
25
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.8%
26
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.6%
27
npj Systems Biology and Applications
99 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
28
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%