Back

Benchmarking cell type annotation in spatial transcriptomics: resolving cellular hierarchies, biological fidelity, and dynamic cell states

Zhu, Y.; Hu, Y.; Xie, M. B.; Qin, H.; Szul, Z. J.; Young, D. M.; Yuan, W.; Wang, Q.; Liu, Y. H.; Shen, W.; Meltzer, S.; Zhou, X. M.

2026-06-22 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.16.732716 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Spatial transcriptomics enables the quantification of gene expression within its native tissue context, providing unprecedented insight into tissue architecture, cellular ecosystems, and local cell-cell interactions at regional and single-cell resolution. Accurate cell type annotation is a critical prerequisite for interpreting these data and is often the first and most essential step in downstream analysis. Despite rapid advances in computational methods, cell type annotation remains challenging and frequently requires extensive expert-driven manual curation based on marker-gene expression, spatial context, and prior biological knowledge. While early approaches relied primarily on transcriptional similarity, newer methods increasingly incorporate spatial information, histological features, and multimodal data to improve annotation accuracy. Nevertheless, reliable annotation remains difficult when biological interpretation requires fine-grained subtype resolution, particularly for platforms with limited gene panels, tissues undergoing dynamic cellular state transitions, and studies in which reference and query datasets differ substantially in biological context or technical modality. Here, we present a systematic benchmark of 20 state-of-the-art cell type annotation methods across four spatial transcriptomics datasets spanning diverse technologies, experimental conditions, cell numbers, and gene panel sizes. Importantly, all benchmark datasets contain expert-curated cell type labels, including wellresolved cell populations and subtype annotations, providing high-quality biological ground truth for evaluation. The benchmark encompasses both reference-based and reference-free methods representing a broad range of computational frameworks. Performance was assessed using conventional classification metrics, including accuracy and F1-based measures, together with structure-aware metrics that evaluate both cell-level annotation accuracy and preservation of higher-order biological organization. Across datasets, annotation performance varied substantially according to tissue context, reference-query similarity, and annotation granularity. Fine-grained subtype annotation and recovery of rare cell populations remained challenging for many methods, particularly in datasets capturing injury, repair, developmental, and regenerative processes characterized by continuous cellular state transitions. Notably, high classification accuracy did not necessarily correspond to preservation of global cellular relationships or biologically coherent downstream pathway and gene-set enrichment analyses. Overall, scANVI, Seurat, and TACCO consistently ranked among the top-performing methods, although their relative advantages were context dependent. Together, our results provide a comprehensive assessment of current annotation strategies for spatial transcriptomics and offer practical guidance for selecting methods that best align with specific biological questions, dataset characteristics, and analytical priorities.

Matching journals

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

1
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
18.3%
2
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
13.0%
3
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 24%
6.7%
4
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.8%
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.3%
6
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
7
Nature Methods
385 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.5%
8
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.4%
9
Genome Research
468 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
10
Nature Biotechnology
172 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.1%
12
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.7%
13
Cell Reports Methods
165 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
14
BMC Methods
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
15
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
16
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.9%
17
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.7%
18
Life Science Alliance
285 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
19
Molecular Systems Biology
162 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 33%
1.3%
21
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
22
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 25%
1.1%
23
Molecular Biology of the Cell
311 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
24
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
25
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.9%
26
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%