Table 3 Technical characteristics of single-cell transcriptomic sequencing technologies
From: Application and prospects of single cell sequencing in tumors
Transcript coverage | Amplification | UMI | Advantages | Disadvantage | Ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tang2009 | Nearly full-length | PCR | No | Sensitive, accurate | Less cell flux, expensive | [4] |
Smart-seq | Full-length | PCR | No | Sequence coverage is better | Amplification of non-chain specificity | [23] |
Smart-seq2 | Full-length | PCR | No | Increased output, simplified steps | Less cell flux, more expensive | [23] |
CEL-seq2 | 3′-only | IVT (In vitro-transcribed) | Yes | Reduced contamination between samples | Existence Sequence preference | [21] |
Drop-seq | 3′-only | PCR | Yes | Low cost, rapid library preparation, single cell high throughput, multiple possibilities | Needed microfluidic platform, low sensitivity of single cell genes | [24] |
MARS-seq | 3′-only | IVT | Yes | High throughput, Strictly control amplification bias | expensive | [22] |
10x Chromium | Full-length | PCR | Yes | Simple and convenient, High throughput | require large initial cell count | |
Quartz-seq | Full-length | PCR | No | reduce PCR by-products、Reducing contamination of small fragments | Amplification bias | [30] |