Table 2 Information and sequencing statistics of three samples and comparison between different sequencing strategies. NA, after pre-processing the data, some of them didn’t use for downstream analysis.
Sample ID | Cellranger version and seq strategy | Number of cells | Median number of detected genes | Sequencing saturation (%) | Mean reads per cell | Number of cells post filtering |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
kidney1 | Cellranger 2.1, 150 bp × 2 | 8,091 | 856 | 85.9 | 42,485 | NA. |
Kidney1 | Cellranger 3.0, 150 bp × 2 | 8,161 | 825 | 85.5 | 42,121 | NA. |
Kidney1 | Cellranger 3.0, 26 bp × 98 bp, 10X seq protocol | 8,164 | 837 | 85.7 | 42,105 | 7,221 |
kidney2 | Cellranger 2.2, 150 bp × 2 | 6,472 | 960 | 85.6 | 37,763 | NA. |
kidney2 | Cellranger 3.0, 150 bp × 2 | 6,493 | 910 | 80.2% | 25,539 | NA. |
kidney2 | Cellranger 3.0, 26 bp × 98 bp, 10X seq protocol | 6,499 | 887 | 79.9% | 25,515 | 5,543 |
kidney3 | Cellranger 2.2, 150 bp × 2 | 10,705 | 692 | 85.7 | 21,064 | NA. |
Kidney3 | Cellranger 3.0, 150 bp × 2 | 10,741 | 683 | 85.6 | 20,993 | NA. |
Kidney3 | Cellranger 3.0, 26 bp × 98 bp, 10X seq protocol | 10,741 | 684 | 85.6 | 20,993 | 10,602 |
