Back

Somatic variant detection in normal tissues from single-cell sequencing data

Luo, R.; Wang, Z.; Dou, J.; Bhamidipati, S. V.; Kalra, D.; Grochowski, C. M.; Doddapaneni, H. V.; Gibbs, R. A.; Chen, K.; Chen, R.

2026-06-14 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.10.731451 bioRxiv
Show abstract

A crucial advantage of single-cell sequencing (SCS) is its ability to identify somatic variants in individual cells, enabling phylogenetic analysis of cellular populations within bulk tissues. While identifying somatic variants in tumor tissues via SCS has become a common practice, doing so in normal tissues remains challenging due to the rarity of somatic variants in normal cells. To evaluate the feasibility of somatic variant calling from widely available single-nucleus RNA-seq (snRNA-seq) and single-nucleus ATAC-seq (snATAC-seq) data, we profiled a Cell-line mix of six HapMap samples prepared by the SMaHT consortium using 10x Genomics 5 snRNA-seq (12k cells with 36k mean reads per cell) and snATAC-seq (11k cells with 14k median high-quality fragments per cell) for variant calling. PacBio long-read whole genome sequencing (WGS) data (109x) generated from individual cell lines were used as ground truth. Two computational tools, Monopogen and SComatic, were used for somatic variant calling from the SCS data. Monopogen achieved single nucleotide variant (SNV) detection accuracies of 93.30% in the snRNA-seq and 99.64% in the snATAC-seq data, both of which outperformed SComatic (74.35% and 94.29%, respectively). Monopogen also consistently detected somatic SNVs at cellular fractions as low as 0.5% (2.54% in snRNA and 0.81% in snATAC) in individual samples. Notably, snATAC-seq exhibited higher genomic coverage breadth and larger number of variants detected than snRNA-seq. While the SCS data have lower overall genome coverage than that of the bulk WGS, the single-cell level variant resolution allows Monopogen to assign variants to their cells of origin with over 80% accuracy in both RNA and ATAC modalities, thereby facilitating studies of clonal evolution and cell-type-specific mutagenesis. Other benchmarking methods were also evaluated (DeepVariant, Cellsnp-lite and Mutect2) for comparison. In conclusion, our study demonstrated the feasibility of performing reliable single-cell somatic mutation calling in a cell-line mixture and discussed the strengths and limitations of current computational methods when applied to normal tissues.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Research
468 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.9%
2
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.8%
3
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 1%
9.6%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 11%
6.7%
5
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
6
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.3%
8
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.3%
9
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 9%
3.4%
11
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.2%
12
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
BMC Medical Genomics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
14
Genes
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
15
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
16
GENETICS
483 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.1%
18
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Genetics
230 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
20
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
21
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Cell Reports Methods
165 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
24
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
25
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 35%
0.8%
26
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
27
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%