Back

Systematic benchmarking of commercial workflows for isoform-resolved single-nucleus transcriptomics

Köhler, F.; Delgado-Tejedor, A.; Zehnsdorf, M.; Salgado Albarran, M.; Zalba Jadraque, L.; Gonzalez Navarrete, I.; Cozzuto, L.; Ponomarenko, J.; Fuste Perez, B.

2026-09-04 genomics
10.64898/2026.09.01.748518 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Short-read sequencing-based single-cell transcriptomics represents the current gold standard for studying cellular transcriptomes but remains limited in its ability to resolve full-length transcript isoforms and splicing patterns. Long-read single-cell and single-nucleus RNA sequencing (LR sc/snRNA-seq) enables the transcriptome-wide characterization of full-length isoforms at cellular resolution, yet the relative performance of commercially available workflows remains insufficiently explored. Here, using nuclei extracted from a standardized multi-species benchmark sample and Oxford Nanopore Technologies long-read sequencing, we systematically benchmarked four LR snRNA-seq strategies: 10x Genomics 3', 10x Genomics 5', ArgenTag, and Parse Biosciences. Comparing transcriptome features qualitatively and quantitatively, as well as the concordance with matched short-read data and the ability to resolve cellular heterogeneity, we identified substantial method-specific differences in read length and yield, transcript coverage, isoform detection, and recovery of sample-specific biological information, with the 10x Genomics 3' and 5' assays emerging as the most balanced approaches for comprehensive isoform-resolved single-nucleus transcriptomics. Altogether, our study provides a systematic assessment of four commercially available workflows for performing LR snRNA-seq and highlights key methodological trade-offs related to distinct library preparation strategies, thus providing practical guidance for future isoform-resolved transcriptome studies at the single-nucleus level.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.