Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T07:02:45.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Single-cell sequencing and its applications in bladder cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2022

Wang Wei
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, No.169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan 430071, People's Republic of China Center for Single-Cell Omics and Tumor Liquid Biopsy, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Department of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Yangtze University, No.55 North Jianghan Road, Shashi District, Jingzhou 434000, People's Republic of China
Yuan Rong
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, No.169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan 430071, People's Republic of China
Liu Sanhe
Affiliation:
Wuhan Research Center for Infectious Diseases and Cancer, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Wuhan, China
Yang Chunxiu
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, No.169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan 430071, People's Republic of China
Erick Thokerunga
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, No.169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan 430071, People's Republic of China
Diansheng Cui*
Affiliation:
Wuhan Research Center for Infectious Diseases and Cancer, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Wuhan, China Department of Urology, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430079, People's Republic of China
Fubing Wang*
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, No.169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan 430071, People's Republic of China Wuhan Research Center for Infectious Diseases and Cancer, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Wuhan, China
*
Author for correspondence: Fubing Wang, E-mail: wfb20042002@sina.com Diansheng Cui, E-mail: Cuidiansheng1@sina.com
Author for correspondence: Fubing Wang, E-mail: wfb20042002@sina.com Diansheng Cui, E-mail: Cuidiansheng1@sina.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bladder cancer is the most common malignant tumour of the urinary system that is characterised by significant intra-tumoural heterogeneity. While large-scale sequencing projects have provided a preliminary understanding of tumour heterogeneity, these findings are based on the average signals obtained from the pooled populations of diverse cells. Recent advances in single-cell sequencing (SCS) technologies have been critical in this regard, opening up new ways of understanding the nuanced tumour biology by identifying distinct cellular subpopulations, dissecting the tumour microenvironment, and characterizing cellular genomic mutations. By integrating these novel insights, SCS technologies are expected to make powerful and meaningful changes to the current diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer through the identification and usage of novel biomarkers as well as targeted therapeutics. SCS can discriminate complex heterogeneity in a large population of tumour cells and determine the key molecular properties that influence clinical outcomes. Here, we review the advances in single-cell technologies and discuss their applications in cancer research and clinical practice, with a specific focus on bladder cancer.

Type
Review
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Worldwide, bladder cancer accounted for 573 278 new cases and 212 536 deaths in 2020 (Ref. Reference Sung1). Bladder cancer can present as non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer or muscle-invasive bladder cancer based on its invasion depth.

In addition to its high incidence, the clinical outcomes of bladder cancer remain highly unsatisfactory. Patients with advanced bladder cancers often develop metastases and resistance to chemotherapy. Advances in treatment will thus depend on an improved understanding of the underlying biology, especially the characterisation of bladder cancer with high-resolution technologies. In recent years, large-scale sequencing projects and gene expression studies have provided molecular insights into cancers, including frequently mutated genes, aberrantly regulated programmes, differentially expressed genes and molecular typing systems based on gene expression profiles (Refs Reference McGranahan and Swanton2Reference Choi4). However, these data reflect mixed signals of bulk tissues, and often, fail to capture the diversity of individual cells and cellular subpopulations. Thus, it is essential to develop high-resolution strategies that can effectively dissect and systematically analyse tumour heterogeneity. Two pioneering studies formed the technical foundations for single-cell sequencing (SCS): (a) exponential amplification of the cDNA of single hematopoietic cells and (b) T7 RNA polymerase for in vitro transcription and linear amplification of cDNA (Ref. Reference Eberwine5). Recent advances in molecular biology, microfluidics and nanotechnology have accelerated the development of SCS technologies (Ref. Reference Stuart and Satija6) and revolutionised our understanding of cancer evolution (Refs Reference Gao7Reference Casasent10), the tumour microenvironment (TME) (Refs Reference Li11Reference Lambrechts14) and tumour heterogeneity (Refs Reference Carter15Reference Chen17) and will continue to lead to new discoveries. The quick evolution of sequencing approaches has led to new discoveries in tumorigenesis, tumour metastasis, therapeutic resistance and precision medicine.

In this review, we will describe in brief single-cell technologies, summarise its applications in human cancers and bladder cancer, and propose major avenues for future investigation, with a focus on how this technology may influence clinical practice.

Single-cell DNA sequencing

In 2011, the first single-cell DNA sequencing (scDNA-seq) was reported by Navin to study the genetic heterogeneity of cancer and the evolution of tumorigenesis (Ref. Reference Navin18). The amount of DNA in a single cell (about 6 picogram) was not sufficient for next-generation sequencing, so whole-genome amplification (WGA) is always required to amplify DNA (Refs Reference Van Loo and Voet19, Reference Zhang20). Recently, alternative WGA technologies having degenerate oligonucleotide-primed-PCR (Ref. Reference Blagodatskikh21), multiple displacement amplification (Refs Reference Blagodatskikh21, Reference Xu22) and multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycles (MALBAC) (Ref. Reference Zhang23). Among them, MALBAC can achieve low amplification bias with higher genome coverage during whole-genome sequencing. Currently, the most common applications of scDNA-seq are copy-number aberrations (CNAs) profiling and mutation detection. CNAs play an important role in moulding the genomes of cancers and has been proved to be useful in cancer prognostic prediction and therapeutic management. Utilizing scDNA-seq, one group was able to decipher the genetic heterogeneity within a breast tumour (Ref. Reference Baslan24). Their data highlighted the power of single-cell genomics in dissecting intra-tumoural genetic heterogeneity of CNAs, and the magnitude with which CNAs heterogeneity affects the genomes of breast cancers. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) studies of breast cancer have identified many prevalent mutations, it is still unable to give us insights into the genomic diversity within tumours. Another group developed a whole-genome and exome SCS approach called nuc-seq (Ref. Reference Wang25) to sequence single normal and tumour nuclei from an oestrogen-receptor-positive (ER1) breast cancer and a triple-negative ductal carcinoma. Their data show that aneuploid rearrangements occurred early in tumour evolution and remained highly stable as the tumour masses clonally expanded. In contrast, point mutations evolved gradually, generating extensive clonal diversity. Despite these achievements,there are several challenges for scDNA-seq. For CNAs profiling, commercial platforms have achieved high-throughput cell sorting and processing, but they are challenged by lower data quality and limited genomic resolution. High-quality copy-number data at single-molecule resolution can be realised by using tagmentation chemistry methods but have modest throughput. In addition, mutation detection requires a higher coverage depth of genes of interest, but only a small number of cells can be profiled due to high costs. How to improve the throughput of scDNA-seq while reducing the cost remains to be a big challenge. In addition, technologies for unbiased WGA and the lower allelic dropout rates must be developed.

Single-cell RNA sequencing

Single-cell transcriptome sequencing, often referred to as single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) was first reported by Tang et al. in 2009 (Ref. Reference Tang26). Recent commercialisation of SCS technologies has provided stable platforms that can be applied to cancer research and clinical applications, making it the most widely applied SCS approach. Single-cell mRNA sequencing not only reveals the quantitative and expression profile, but also exon splicing and allele-specific expression (Refs Reference Zhang20, Reference Marinov27, Reference Borel28). The structure of complex tissues is tightly linked with its function, thus determining the frequency and identity of cell types is crucial. A major advantage of scRNA-seq over conventional RNA-seq is the ability to perform cell-type-specific differential expression analysis,and the identified subpopulations can be further characterised to known cell types.

Additionally, based on calculation and simulation date from scRNA-seq, cell trajectories and pseudo time can be reconstructed in order to infer the state transition between cancer cells (Ref. Reference Chen, Ning and Shi29). Understanding the nature of the process and possible intermediate states can lead to the identification of key genes that act as switches and drivers of these processes. ScRNA-seq has facilitated the mapping of the landscape of tumour cells, and the inference of cellular interactions between malignant cells and stromal cells (Ref. Reference Chung30). The analysis of abnormal expression stares of malignant cells can provide a basis for precise targeted therapy (Ref. Reference Izar31). In addition, scRNA-seq of infiltrating immune cells provides new methods for patient stratification, helps to understand the function of tumour-infiltrating immune cells (Ref. Reference Zheng32).

It is however worth noting that due to limitations, scRNA-seq can only manage a small portion of the transcriptomes, with a bias for more highly expressed genes. In addition, scRNA-seq is very sensitive to sample quality and is not suited for the profiling of sub-optimally preserved or handled clinical specimen. Moreover, high costs limit the ability to profile large cohorts of tumours, and only a few to a few dozens of samples are typically profiled in each study. Although scRNA-seq has the highest throughput of single-cell methods, only a small number of cells can be measured.

Recent advances in single-cell technologies

Isolation of single cells is the first and crucial step in SCS. Early cell isolation technologies rely on manual or semi-automatic methods, such as micro-pipetting, fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and laser capture microdissection (LCM). The number of cells that can be isolated continues to increase with the emergence of new technologies. Now, microfluidic separation platform has become the mainstream methodologies, and the number of cells that can be obtained at a time has reached thousands or tens of thousands.

Multiple platforms have been established for automatic single-cell sorting and have significantly improved the efficiency of single-cell separation (Table 1). The Fluidigm C1 (Ref. Reference Brouzes33) first achieved this goal with a microfluidic chip that allows single-cell isolation, phenotyping and genomic profiling. This achievement inspired the invention of other platforms, such as the 10× Genomics Chromium, Rhapsody™ system from Bio-Rad and SureCell system from Illumina. These emerging commercial platforms have boosted sequencing efficiency to new levels. Efforts have also been made to reduce sequencing costs, such as Seq-well (Ref. Reference Gierahn34) and SPLit-seq (Ref. Reference Rosenberg35). Additionally, novel platforms, including high-density FACS systems (Ref. Reference Baslan36), nanowell (Ref. Reference Laks37) and combinatorial indexing systems (Refs Reference Yin38, Reference Vitak39) have also been developed with higher flexibility and lower costs.

Table 1. Isolation methods of single-cell sequencing

Single-cell genome and transcriptome studies have emerged as powerful methods for investigating the cancer mechanisms, and more single-cell technologies have been developed to explore the disease, including DNase-seq (Ref. Reference Jin46) and ATAC-seq (Refs Reference Buenrostro47, Reference Cusanovich48) for measuring regions of open chromatin, Hi-C for exploring chromosomal contacts (Ref. Reference Ramani49), ChIP-seq for histone position mapping (Ref. Reference Rotem50), single-cell bisulphite sequencing (Ref. Reference Smallwood51) and bisulphite-free (single-cell CGI-seq) sequencing (Ref. Reference Han52) for DNA methylation analysis. Simultaneous analysis at multiple regulatory levels in the same cell is another important field in SCS (Table 2). It provides an opportunity to comprehensively understand the phenotypes and mechanisms of malignant cells. Combinatorial analysis methods are available for the analysis of the genome and transcriptome (G&T-seq and DR-seq) (Refs Reference Macaulay53Reference Macaulay55), epigenome and transcriptome (scMT-seq, scTrio-seq and scNMT-seq) (Refs Reference Angermueller56Reference Hou58). Moreover, single-cell COOL-seq (Ref. Reference Gu59) enables the simultaneous analysis of chromatin states, CNAs and DNA methylation states.

Table 2. Single-cell multi-omics technologies

Accompanying the tremendous progress in SCS technologies are specialised algorithms developed to best interpret single-cell data. For example, the imputation of dropout events (Refs Reference Gong68, Reference Lin, Troup and Ho69), normalisation and correction of batch effects (Refs Reference Haghverdi70Reference Bacher74), clustering cell types and identification (Refs Reference Butler71, Reference Kiselev75), pseudo-temporal trajectory inference (Refs Reference Ji and Ji76, Reference Setty77) and data visualisation (Refs Reference Ding, Condon and Shah78Reference Levine80).

The tissue dissociation steps of SCS inevitably lead to the loss of information about the original cell locations and cellular interactions in the tumour tissue. How to retain spatial information remains a key question in the characterisation of tumour heterogeneity. The brute-force approach to capture spatial information of gene expression consists of the direct isolation of regions of interest, which are then placed in separate tubes for RNA extraction and subsequent gene expression profiling. Examples of this approach are LCM, as well as Geo-Seq (Ref. Reference Chen81) and Tomo-seq (Ref. Reference Junker82). However, these methods are often labour-intensive and difficult to use to cover large areas, so it is not feasible to obtain a complete picture of the specimens. Instead of collecting molecules from individual tissue sites (or cells), in situ hybridisation (ISH) can be used to directly visualise molecules of interest in the original environment through fluorescent labelling, such as smFISH (Ref. Reference Raj83), seqFISH (Refs Reference Lubeck84, Reference Shah85), MERFIS (Ref. Reference Chen86), or hybridizing and sequencing methods, including TIVA (Ref. Reference Lovatt87) and FISSEQ (Ref. Reference Lovatt87). However, these methods are limited by sequencing throughput or cell targets that can be measured. The ground-breaking technology of spatial transcriptomes realised the localisation of high-throughput tissue transcriptome information for the first time. Ståhl et al. (Ref. Reference Ståhl88) used a specially designed chip to retain the cell location information and applied NGS technology to achieve the perfect combination of ISH and high-throughput sequencing. Their endeavour generated a complete in situ gene expression image in the tissue. The development of SCS has remarkably promoted research on single-layer cell technology. Unlike the 10× Visium, which attaches the reverse transcription primers on a glass slide, Slide-Seq (Ref. Reference Rodriques89) achieves a higher resolution by using a ‘disc’ consisted of barcoded microbeads, and the newly improved Slide-Seq2 (Ref. Reference Stickels90) enables an RNA capture efficiency of up to 50% (approximately 10 times higher than that of Slide-Seq). The further developments in single-cell space technologies will greatly improve our understanding of cancer biology, and by integrating single-cell resolution genomic data with morphological features, it is expected to transform clinical pathology diagnostic models in near future.

Application of single-cell sequencing in cancer research

Bulk genomic analyses and expression profiling of clinical specimens have led to a preliminary understanding of cancer. Although we have gained some knowledge of genetic heterogeneity and evolutionary principles, we are still lacking knowledge of the molecular details behind complex phenomena in cancer. Single-cell genomic techniques have emerged as powerful approaches to dissect human tumours at the resolution of individual cells, providing a compelling approach to deciphering cancer biology. With such advantages, state-of-the-art technologies have been broadly employed for the study of cancer biology in several themes (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Application of single-cell sequencing in cancer research.

Understanding the complex tumour heterogeneity

Cancer is characterised by its heterogeneity at both inter- and intra-tumour levels, and poses great challenges for precision medical therapy. There are several determinants of tumour heterogeneity: (1) genetic heterogeneity – during tumour evolution, accumulation of stochastic mutations resulting in increasing genetic diversity eventually leads to the coexistence of multiple sub-clones; (2) epigenetic effects – cells in the TME are often in different cellular states and thus show distinct functions; (3) spatial factors and different spatial sites have different cell compositions within the tumour, resulting in spatial heterogeneity; and (4) external factors, such as oxygen supply and nutrient availability. These factors work together to create a complex system with multiple layers of heterogeneity. Tumour heterogeneity determines tumour behaviour, including growth, metastasis, drug sensitivity and patient survival. Therefore, comprehensive characterisation of tumour heterogeneity is essential for tumour studies. By analysing the expression profiles of each cell and subclone, we can study the biological properties of tumour-initiating cells, the functions of different tumour cell subpopulations in the complex microenvironment, and the collaborative interactions among tumour cell subpopulations.

Characterization of the tumour immune microenvironment

The TME is a collection of various cell types and biochemical molecules that support the survival and expansion of tumour cells. The interactions between tumour cells, stromal cells and immune cells also play pivotal roles in regulating tumour growth, immune surveillance and metastasis. In the TME, fibroblasts can be reprogrammed into carcinoma-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and have been shown to promote or suppress tumour growth by interacting with tumour cells (Ref. Reference Kalluri91). ScRNA-seq studies have revealed the different functions of heterogeneous CAF subtypes, such as mechanism construction, angiogenesis and immune regulation (Refs Reference Lambrechts14, Reference Bartoschek92, Reference Elyada93). Due to the growing use of immunotherapy in solid tumours, TME has received intense attention. Recently, detailed characterisation of T cells with scRNA-seq has revealed that decreased activation of T cells and increased T-cell exhaustion signatures are associated with the progression of several human cancers, and a suppressive immune microenvironment is associated with worse prognosis (Refs Reference Guo94Reference Savas96), and tissue-resident memory T cells with higher cytotoxic activity are associated with better prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients (Ref. Reference Savas96). Analysis of tumour-associated macrophages has identified novel macrophage subtypes that have an expression profile associated with cell migration (Ref. Reference Zhang97) that are distinct from the traditional M1 (inflammatory) or M2 (tumour-promoting) subtypes. Single-cell technologies provide a more comprehensive insight into the diverse ecosystem of cancer and help us to understand the dynamic changes in the TME in immunotherapy.

Decoding the genesis of therapy resistance

Chemotherapy is still one of the preferred therapies for many malignant tumours; however, drug resistance is a major obstacle in the treatment of cancers. The idea behind chemotherapy is to kill cancer cells by taking advantage of their ability to differentiate faster than benign cells. However, small pockets of cancer cells can withstand their assault, allowing cancer to eventually return. A similar situation can be found in targeted therapies. Targeting therapy based on the discovery of genes altered by somatic mutations, functional characterisation and biochemical activities of malignant tumours has been widely applied. Unfortunately, the breadth and rapidity with which relapse and hold have been observed have surprised cancer biologists and clinicians (Refs Reference Lito, Rosen and Solit98, Reference Ma99). The tumour ecosystem consists of heterogeneous tumour cell populations. Successful tumour therapy requires complete elimination of genetically and phenotypically different subpopulations. Otherwise, even small surviving subpopulations may cause repopulation and refractory tumours. SCS technologies allow for a better profiling of the TME and provide the basis for more successful tumour treatments. The mechanisms underlying drug resistance have been revealed through the SCS of drug-resistant solid tumours. Whether drug resistance originates from pre-existing subclones with drug-resistant phenotypes or is induced by chemotherapy itself remains debated. In prostate cancer, single-cell transcriptome analysis of CTCs revealed activation of non-canonical Wnt signalling associated with resistance to androgen receptor inhibitors (Ref. Reference Miyamoto100). Shaffer et al. (Ref. Reference Shaffer101) investigated a BRAF inhibitor-treated melanoma cell line using scRNA-seq. A rare drug-resistant cell state was found prior to BRAF inhibitor treatment, which requires further genetic reprogramming and loss of SOX10 to achieve complete drug resistance. In another study of oral cancer cell lines (Ref. Reference Sharma102), scRNA-seq analysis revealed that heterogeneous phenotypes favoured selection of existing clones, while homogenous populations could be reprogrammed by increasing Sox9 expression and losing Sox2. ScDNA-seq can determine whether drug-resistant clones in tumour masses are present and selected after chemotherapy or alternatively induced by drug-resistant mutations during treatment. In another study of chemotherapy-resistant TNBC, combination analysis using scDNA-seq and scRNA-seq showed that drug-resistant genotypes were present in the tumour mass prior to chemotherapy. Further transcriptional reprogramming results in a fully resistant phenotype (Ref. Reference Kim103). In addition to intrinsic drug resistance, tumour cells exhibit different changes in response to chemotherapeutic drug-induced damage. Park SR et al. (Ref. Reference Park104) characterised the transcriptome response of cultured colon cancer cell lines to 5-fluorouracil (5FU)-induced DNA damage. After 5FU treatment, a single population of colon cancer cells adopted three distinct transcriptome phenotypes, with many genes showing group-specific expression patterns mediating DNA damage responses specific to the corresponding cell fate.

Single-cell sequencing in clinical management

Although most SCS studies have been research-focused, the development and maturation of SCS technologies provide new opportunities for clinical management. Early detection is paramount in high-risk groups because interventions can limit malignant diseases to early stages and improve clinical outcomes. In fact, the presence of disseminated tumour cells (DTCs) can be detected in many body fluids, such as urine of bladder and prostate cancer (Ref. Reference Nawroth, Weckermann and Retz105), peritoneal washing fluids of ovarian cancer and pancreatic cancer (Refs Reference Yamada106, Reference Naz107). In studies of multiple myeloma patients and healthy controls, researchers have identified the expression programme of rare aggressive plasma cells in several myeloma patients (Ref. Reference Ledergor108).

Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) are a population of cells shed from a primary or metastatic tumour into the peripheral blood and lymph (Ref. Reference Pantel, Alix-Panabières and Riethdorf109), and are also responsible for the progression of tumour metastases. They are regarded as important supplementary indicators in TNM tumour staging, prognosis assessment and tumour recurrence prediction. Single-cell approaches can identify the TME in primary and metastatic tumours and link the two ends via CTC, providing insight into the mechanism of metastasis. Thus, single-cell technology has become essential for investigating these cells. Puram et al. identified invasive gene expression programmes in tumour cells in head and neck carcinoma (Ref. Reference Puram12) that promoted tumour metastasis. In a recent study (Ref. Reference Sun110), CTCs from four different vascular sites were collected from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The transcriptomic landscape of CTCs reveals significant intra-vascular and inter-vascular heterogeneity between CTCs from different collection sites. In addition, CCL5 was found to be an important mediator of CTC immune escape, this may aid in new anti-metastasis therapeutic strategies in HCC. Accordingly, the integration of early screening and SCS technologies is expected to revolutionise the diagnosis of malignant tumours.

The diagnosis of tumours mainly depends on pathological evaluation, but it can be interfered with by many factors, such as micro-invasion, and tissue loss due to incomplete resection. The SCS method has demonstrated its high efficiency in the profiling of premalignant cells (Refs Reference Casasent10, Reference Barros-Silva111, Reference Bernard112). In invasive prostate cancer, SCS analysis uncovered that invasive clonal populations are well correlated with Gleason score, thus guiding surgical decisions (Ref. Reference Alexander113). Bian et al. suggested that SCS typing of colorectal cancer can be used to determine the optimum treatment options for individual patients (Ref. Reference Bian114). Moreover, SCS can uncover novel drug targets in primary, metastatic, especial in therapy-resistant disease. Hong et al. revealed serial adaptive changes by transcriptomic reprogramming and copy number changes in patients undergoing endocrine therapy (Ref. Reference Hong115). Methods for scRNA-seq and single-cell Assay for Transposase Accessible Chromatin with high-throughput sequencing (scATAC-seq) can be used to identify drug targets of stroma or immune cells that contribute to tumour metastasis and therapeutic resistance (Refs Reference Bian114Reference Azizi116). Single-cell technologies have revolutionised cancer biology and with the developments of more SCS methods, the throughput will be higher, and sequencing accuracy and sensitivity will improve. We expect SCS technologies to accelerate the development of better diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, lead to improved therapeutic efficacy and avoid tumour drug resistance.

Application of single-cell sequencing in bladder cancer

In recent years, the application of SCS in the field of bladder cancer has also improved our understanding of bladder cancer (see Fig. 2). Yu et al. (Ref. Reference Yu117) created a single-cell transcriptomic map of the human and mouse bladder and identified two novel types of human bladder cells that could be associated with nerve conduction and bladder emptying. The origin of bladder cancer and driver genes has always been the focus of frontier research. In a muscle-infiltrating transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, four non-silent mutant alleles, including CFTR, NIPBL, ASTN1 and DHX57, were identified by analysing the spectrum and clonal structure of somatic mutant alleles, which may play a key role in the maintenance of ancestral clones and the muscle invasion ability of subclones (Ref. Reference Li118). Phylogenetic analysis of bladder cancer (Ref. Reference Yang119) revealed that bladder cancer stem cells may originate from bladder cancer non-stem cells or bladder epithelial stem cells. It was also found that co-mutations in ARIDA1, GPRC5A and MLL2 can enhance the stemness of bladder cancer. Chemotherapeutic drug resistance and tumour metastasis are the main causes of death in patients with advanced bladder cancer. It may be possible to overcome drug resistance by developing a personalised approach against relapsing cancers based on a comprehensive analysis of cell type-specific transcriptomic variations during the clinical course of the disease using scRNA-seq. By mapping the transcriptome of cancers treated with platinum-based chemotherapy using scRNA-seq, Tanaka et al. (Ref. Reference Tanaka120) uncovered a novel gene, COX7B, associated with platinum resistance, and found its surrogate marker, CD63. Low COX7B levels were significantly associated with poor response to chemotherapy in urinary bladder cancer. In a sequential clinical study, Lee et al. (Ref. Reference Lee121) used scRNA-seq to depict the tumour landscape of a chemo-resistant metastatic, muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer harbouring an activating HRAS mutation. They also applied scRNA-seq to the corresponding patient-derived xenograft (PDX) before and after treatment with tipifarnib, an HRAS-targeting agent. Although tipifarnib treatment was unable to achieve a complete response, comparative scRNA-seq analysis between pre- and post-tipifarnib-treated PDX revealed the nature of tipifarnib-refractory tumour cells and the tumour-supporting microenvironment. Accordingly, the pD-L1 inhibitor altezizumab was applied in patients to achieve a favourable response. Recently, an encouraging advance in the clinical treatment of bladder cancer has come from the advent of novel immunotherapy, but the responses to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy occur infrequently. In one study, scRNA sequencing and paired T-cell receptor sequencing were performed to identify differences in TME between tumour tissue and normal adjacent tissue (Ref. Reference Oh122). Surprisingly, there was no significant difference between CD8+ T cells in tumour tissues and control normal tissues, while CD4+ T cells showed several tumour-specific states, and these CD4+ T cells were suppressed by regulatory T cells. Multiple lineages of cytotoxic CD4+ T cells were clonally expanded. These CD4+ T cells can kill autologous tumours in an MHC class II-dependent pathway.

Fig. 2. Apllication of single-cell sequencing in bladder cancer.

Challenges and future directions

Single-cell technologies can resolve tumour heterogeneity with limited input materials, and therefore hold great potential in early detection, clinical diagnosis, non-invasive monitoring and new therapeutic target discovery. Early detection is critical in modern oncology since early interventions can significantly reduce morbidity and mortality. Early detection of cancers still relies heavily on imaging techniques or pathological analyses. DTCs can be detected in many body fluids near the origin of cancer, and these rare samples provide a unique opportunity for SCS technologies. In the early stages of cancer development, liquid biopsy can be used to isolate individual cancer cells, thus enabling early detection and evaluation of cancer in combination with single-cell technologies (Ref. Reference Russell123). Pathological diagnosis remains the primary method of cancer diagnosis. It relies on visual discrimination, which is susceptible to a variety of factors. SCS has been shown to be highly efficient in the analysis of precancerous cells in Dutal carcinoma in situ (Ref. Reference Casasent10), pancreatic precancerous (Ref. Reference Bernard112) and atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (Ref. Reference Allin124). In the future, as the cost of sequencing decreases, the efficacy of single-cell methods can be verified by clinical investigations, which may have a significant effect on tumour diagnosis. Additionally, in some cases where pathologic methods cannot provide a definitive diagnosis, single-cell technology has the potential to provide an adjunct or alternative diagnosis. Single-cell technologies provide a powerful tool for the unbiased discovery of novel actionable targets in primary, metastatic or drug-resistant malignant tumours. In androgen receptor inhibitor-resistant prostate cancer, scRNA-seq of CTC detected the activation of non-neoplastic Wnt signalling, providing a new therapeutic target for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (Ref. Reference Miyamoto100). Kim et al. (Ref. Reference Kim125) found that sRNA-seq could characterise and predict the most aggressive tumour subsets in lung adenocarcinoma. Notably, when they compared the results of the single-cell approach with conventional sequencing, they found that the transcriptional profiles of the resistance subpopulations were often covered by the more prominent subpopulations, thus obscuring meaningful scientific findings. Thus, integrating SCS with traditional DNA sequencing may provide more optimised target selection and personalised therapeutic strategies.

Sequencing techniques for studying single-cell genomes, transcriptomes, epigenetic landscapes and chromatin accessibility have been established and optimised. Despite substantial advances, challenges still exist in SCS. The first challenge is the technological noise introduced during the amplification step. Notable allelic dropouts and non-uniform coverage would hamper the accurate detection of single nucleotide variants. Similarly, lowly expressed genes are likely to drop out and are susceptible to technological noise in single-cell transcriptome sequencing. In addition, the number of transcriptomes captured by single-cell transcriptome sequencing is unsatisfactory, which prevents us from understanding the full picture of the cellular transcriptional state. There is some plug-and-play software for the analytical process in SCS. While sequencing companies have developed ‘friendly’ software, the drawback is that they are somewhat of a ‘black box’, with a lack of transparency about the details and parameters of the precise algorithms used. In conclusion, it is necessary to understand the bioinformatics and computational issues involved in SCRNA-seq research; nonetheless, it would benefit clinicians to be supported by bio-informaticians.

Conclusion

SCS technology has been applied in various fields of research, especially in cancer research. It provides a robust tool to understand tumour heterogeneity at the single-cell resolution, so that we can divide cell clusters and identify rare cells. At the meantime, it provides a theoretical basis for early screening and individualised treatment strategies. Further advances and more insights will be made with the launching of Human Cell Atlas (HCA) project and Human Biomolecular Atlas Program (HuBMAP). However, the limitations of SCS technology should remain a concern. First, SCS tends to introduce noise in the step of nucleotide amplification, confounding the real biological variations. Second, the reliability and efficiency of cell separation still need improvement. In addition, most scRNA-seq methods are designed for 3’ or 5’ reads, and these methods, while having increased throughput, lack the ability to capture the full-length transcriptome. Third, batch effects may exist due to the use of different platforms and procedures. Single-cell sequencing technology is limited by its high cost, experiment time and less popular applications. Therefore, future development of single-cell sequencing technology should focus on reducing cost and improving accuracy, which will greatly promote the use of SCS. In addition, the application of SCS is limited by the high cost and long experimental time, as well as the need for professional technicians. While significant challenges remain, it is expected that the reliability, efficiency, sensitivity and accuracy of SCS will improve as related technologies evolve. In summary, we expect that the application of single-cell methods in cancer medicine will lead to significant improvements in the future.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Improvement Project for Theranostic ability on Difficulty Miscellaneous disease (Tumor) and the Science & Technology Innovation Fostering Foundation of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (ZLYNXM202008,No. znpy2019050,znpy2019004, znpy2018027).

Author contributions

Fubing Wang, Wang Wei and Yuan Rong conceived the idea; Wang Wei wrote the initial draft of the paper, the rest of the authors were involved in writing and revising the paper.

Financial support

This work was also funded by the Medical Top-talented youth development project of Hubei Province by Medical talented youth development project in Health Commission of Hubei Province (No. WJ2019Q049). This work was supported by grants from the Cancer Research Program of the National Cancer Center (NCC201817B054). Thanks to the Department of Pathology, Zhongnan Hospital for the assistance of figure creation. All figures are created in BioRender, https://biorender.com/.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes

*

Equal contribution.

References

Sung, H et al. (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians 71, 209249.Google Scholar
McGranahan, N and Swanton, C (2015) Biological and therapeutic impact of intratumor heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Cancer Cell 27, 1526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sjödahl, G et al. (2012) A molecular taxonomy for urothelial carcinoma. Clinical Cancer Research 18, 33773386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, W et al. (2014) Identification of distinct basal and luminal subtypes of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with different sensitivities to frontline chemotherapy. Cancer Cell 25, 152165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eberwine, J et al. (1992) Analysis of gene expression in single live neurons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 89, 30103014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuart, T and Satija, R (2019) Integrative single-cell analysis. Nature Reviews Genetics 20, 257272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, Y et al. (2017) Single-cell sequencing deciphers a convergent evolution of copy number alterations from primary to circulating tumor cells. Genome Research 27, 13121322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, H et al. (2017) Evolution and heterogeneity of non-hereditary colorectal cancer revealed by single-cell exome sequencing. Oncogene 36, 28572867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jahn, K, Kuipers, J and Beerenwinkel, N (2016) Tree inference for single-cell data. Genome Biology 17, 86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casasent, AK et al. (2018) Multiclonal invasion in breast tumors identified by topographic single cell sequencing. Cell 172, 205217.e12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, H et al. (2017) Reference component analysis of single-cell transcriptomes elucidates cellular heterogeneity in human colorectal tumors. Nature Genetics 49, 708718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puram, SV et al. (2017) Single-cell transcriptomic analysis of primary and metastatic tumor ecosystems in head and neck cancer. Cell 171, 16111624.e24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavin, Y et al. (2017) Innate immune landscape in early lung adenocarcinoma by paired single-cell analyses. Cell 169, 750765.e17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambrechts, D et al. (2018) Phenotype molding of stromal cells in the lung tumor microenvironment. Nature Medicine 24, 12771289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, L et al. (2017) Molecular analysis of circulating tumor cells identifies distinct copy-number profiles in patients with chemosensitive and chemorefractory small-cell lung cancer. Nature Medicine 23, 114119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martelotto, LG et al. (2017) Whole-genome single-cell copy number profiling from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples. Nature Medicine 23, 376385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, C et al. (2017) Single-cell whole-genome analyses by linear amplification via transposon insertion (LIANTI). Science 356, 189194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navin, N et al. (2011) Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature 472, 9094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Loo, P and Voet, T (2014) Single cell analysis of cancer genomes. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 24, 8291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X et al. (2016) Single-cell sequencing for precise cancer research: progress and prospects. Cancer Research 76, 13051312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blagodatskikh, KA et al. (2017) Improved DOP-PCR (iDOP-PCR): a robust and simple WGA method for efficient amplification of low copy number genomic DNA. PLoS ONE 12, e0184507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, L et al. (2016) Virtual microfluidics for digital quantification and single-cell sequencing. Nature Methods 13, 759762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, CZ et al. (2015) Calibrating genomic and allelic coverage bias in single-cell sequencing. Nature Communications 6, 6822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baslan, T et al. (2020) Novel insights into breast cancer copy number genetic heterogeneity revealed by single-cell genome sequencing. eLife 9, e51480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y et al. (2014) Clonal evolution in breast cancer revealed by single nucleus genome sequencing. Nature 512, 155160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, F et al. (2009) mRNA-Seq whole-transcriptome analysis of a single cell. Nature Methods 6, 377382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marinov, GK et al. (2014) From single-cell to cell-pool transcriptomes: stochasticity in gene expression and RNA splicing. Genome Research 24, 496510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borel, C et al. (2015) Biased allelic expression in human primary fibroblast single cells. American Journal of Human Genetics 96, 7080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, G, Ning, B and Shi, T (2019) Single-cell RNA-seq technologies and related computational data analysis. Frontiers in Genetics 10, 317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, W et al. (2017) Single-cell RNA-seq enables comprehensive tumour and immune cell profiling in primary breast cancer. Nature Communications 8, 15081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Izar, B et al. (2020) A single-cell landscape of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Nature Medicine 26, 12711279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zheng, C et al. (2017) Landscape of infiltrating T cells in liver cancer revealed by single-cell sequencing. Cell 169, 13421356.e16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouzes, E et al. (2009) Droplet microfluidic technology for single-cell high-throughput screening. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106, 1419514200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierahn, TM et al. (2017) Seq-Well: portable, low-cost RNA sequencing of single cells at high throughput. Nature Methods 14, 395398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, AB et al. (2018) Single-cell profiling of the developing mouse brain and spinal cord with split-pool barcoding. Science 360, 176182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baslan, T et al. (2015) Optimizing sparse sequencing of single cells for highly multiplex copy number profiling. Genome Research 25, 714724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laks, E et al. (2019) Clonal decomposition and DNA replication states defined by scaled single-cell genome sequencing. Cell 179, 12071221.e22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yin, Y et al. (2019) High-throughput single-cell sequencing with linear amplification. Molecular Cell 76, 676690. e10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitak, SA et al. (2017) Sequencing thousands of single-cell genomes with combinatorial indexing. Nature Methods 14, 302308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nichterwitz, S et al. (2016) Laser capture microscopy coupled with Smart-seq2 for precise spatial transcriptomic profiling. Nature Communications 7, 12139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, E, Biezuner, T and Linnarsson, S (2013) Single-cell sequencing-based technologies will revolutionize whole-organism science. Nature Reviews Genetics 14, 618630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xin, Y et al. (2016) Use of the Fluidigm C1 platform for RNA sequencing of single mouse pancreatic islet cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 113, 32933298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macosko, EZ et al. (2015) Highly parallel genome-wide expression profiling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets. Cell 161, 12021214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fan, HC, Fu, GK and Fodor, SP (2015) Expression profiling. Combinatorial labeling of single cells for gene expression cytometry. Science 347, 1258367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, J et al. (2017) Comprehensive single-cell transcriptional profiling of a multicellular organism. Science 357, 661667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jin, W et al. (2015) Genome-wide detection of DNase I hypersensitive sites in single cells and FFPE tissue samples. Nature 528, 142146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buenrostro, JD et al. (2015) Single-cell chromatin accessibility reveals principles of regulatory variation. Nature 523, 486490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cusanovich, DA et al. (2015) Multiplex single cell profiling of chromatin accessibility by combinatorial cellular indexing. Science 348, 910914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramani, V et al. (2017) Massively multiplex single-cell Hi-C. Nature Methods 14, 263266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rotem, A et al. (2015) Single-cell ChIP-seq reveals cell subpopulations defined by chromatin state. Nature Biotechnology 33, 11651172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smallwood, SA et al. (2014) Single-cell genome-wide bisulfite sequencing for assessing epigenetic heterogeneity. Nature Methods 11, 817820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, L et al. (2017) Bisulfite-independent analysis of CpG island methylation enables genome-scale stratification of single cells. Nucleic Acids Research 45, e77.Google ScholarPubMed
Macaulay, IC et al. (2015) G&T-seq: parallel sequencing of single-cell genomes and transcriptomes. Nature Methods 12, 519522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dey, SS et al. (2015) Integrated genome and transcriptome sequencing of the same cell. Nature Biotechnology 33, 285289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macaulay, IC et al. (2016) Separation and parallel sequencing of the genomes and transcriptomes of single cells using G&T-seq. Nature Protocols 11, 20812103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Angermueller, C et al. (2016) Parallel single-cell sequencing links transcriptional and epigenetic heterogeneity. Nature Methods 13, 229232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, SJ et al. (2018) scNMT-seq enables joint profiling of chromatin accessibility DNA methylation and transcription in single cells. Nature Communications 9, 781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hou, Y et al. (2016) Single-cell triple omics sequencing reveals genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptomic heterogeneity in hepatocellular carcinomas. Cell Research 26, 304319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gu, C et al. (2019) Integrative single-cell analysis of transcriptome, DNA methylome and chromatin accessibility in mouse oocytes. Cell Research 29, 110123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, Y et al. (2016) Simultaneous profiling of transcriptome and DNA methylome from a single cell. Genome Biology 17, 88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheow, LF et al. (2016) Single-cell multimodal profiling reveals cellular epigenetic heterogeneity. Nature Methods 13, 833836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pott, S (2017) Simultaneous measurement of chromatin accessibility, DNA methylation, and nucleosome phasing in single cells. eLife 6, e23203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, F et al. (2017) Single-cell multi-omics sequencing of mouse early embryos and embryonic stem cells. Cell Research 27, 967988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genshaft, AS et al. (2016) Multiplexed, targeted profiling of single-cell proteomes and transcriptomes in a single reaction. Genome Biology 17, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frei, AP et al. (2016) Highly multiplexed simultaneous detection of RNAs and proteins in single cells. Nature Methods 13, 269275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoeckius, M et al. (2017) Simultaneous epitope and transcriptome measurement in single cells. Nature Methods 14, 865868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, VM et al. (2017) Multiplexed quantification of proteins and transcripts in single cells. Nature Biotechnology 35, 936939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gong, W et al. (2018) DrImpute: imputing dropout events in single cell RNA sequencing data. BMC Bioinformatics 19, 220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, P, Troup, M and Ho, JW (2017) CIDR: ultrafast and accurate clustering through imputation for single-cell RNA-seq data. Genome Biology 18, 59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haghverdi, L et al. (2018) Batch effects in single-cell RNA-sequencing data are corrected by matching mutual nearest neighbors. Nature Biotechnology 36, 421427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, A et al. (2018) Integrating single-cell transcriptomic data across different conditions, technologies, and species. Nature Biotechnology 36, 411420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallejos, CA et al. (2017) Normalizing single-cell RNA sequencing data: challenges and opportunities. Nature Methods 14, 565571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, DJ et al. (2017) Scater: pre-processing, quality control, normalization and visualization of single-cell RNA-seq data in R. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 33, 11791186.Google ScholarPubMed
Bacher, R et al. (2017) SCnorm: robust normalization of single-cell RNA-seq data. Nature Methods 14, 584586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiselev, VY et al. (2017) SC3: consensus clustering of single-cell RNA-seq data. Nature Methods 14, 483486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ji, Z and Ji, H (2016) TSCAN: pseudo-time reconstruction and evaluation in single-cell RNA-seq analysis. Nucleic Acids Research 44, e117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Setty, M et al. (2016) Wishbone identifies bifurcating developmental trajectories from single-cell data. Nature Biotechnology 34, 637645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ding, J, Condon, A and Shah, SP (2018) Interpretable dimensionality reduction of single cell transcriptome data with deep generative models. Nature Communications 9, 2002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, B et al. (2017) Visualization and analysis of single-cell RNA-seq data by kernel-based similarity learning. Nature Methods 14, 414416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, JH et al. (2015) Data-driven phenotypic dissection of AML reveals progenitor-like cells that correlate with prognosis. Cell 162, 184197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, J et al. (2017) Spatial transcriptomic analysis of cryosectioned tissue samples with Geo-seq. Nature Protocols 12, 566580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junker, JP et al. (2014) Genome-wide RNA tomography in the zebrafish embryo. Cell 159, 662675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, A et al. (2008) Imaging individual mRNA molecules using multiple singly labeled probes. Nature Methods 5, 877879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lubeck, E et al. (2014) Single-cell in situ RNA profiling by sequential hybridization. Nature Methods 11, 360361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, S et al. (2016) In situ transcription profiling of single cells reveals spatial organization of cells in the mouse hippocampus. Neuron 92, 342357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, KH et al. (2015) RNA imaging. Spatially resolved, highly multiplexed RNA profiling in single cells. Science 348, aaa6090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovatt, D et al. (2014) Transcriptome in vivo analysis (TIVA) of spatially defined single cells in live tissue. Nature Methods 11, 190196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ståhl, PL et al. (2016) Visualization and analysis of gene expression in tissue sections by spatial transcriptomics. Science 353, 7882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriques, SG et al. (2019) Slide-seq: a scalable technology for measuring genome-wide expression at high spatial resolution. Science 363, 14631467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stickels, RR et al. (2021) Highly sensitive spatial transcriptomics at near-cellular resolution with Slide-seqV2. Nature Biotechnology 39, 313319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalluri, R (2016) The biology and function of fibroblasts in cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer 16, 582598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartoschek, M et al. (2018) Spatially and functionally distinct subclasses of breast cancer-associated fibroblasts revealed by single cell RNA sequencing. Nature Communications 9, 5150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elyada, E et al. (2019) Cross-species single-cell analysis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma reveals antigen-presenting cancer-associated fibroblasts. Cancer Discovery 9, 11021123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, X et al. (2018) Global characterization of T cells in non-small-cell lung cancer by single-cell sequencing. Nature Medicine 24, 978985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peng, J et al. (2019) Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intra-tumoral heterogeneity and malignant progression in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cell Research 29, 725738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savas, P et al. (2018) Single-cell profiling of breast cancer T cells reveals a tissue-resident memory subset associated with improved prognosis. Nature Medicine 24, 986993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Q et al. (2019) Landscape and dynamics of single immune cells in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell 179, 829845. e20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lito, P, Rosen, N and Solit, DB (2013) Tumor adaptation and resistance to RAF inhibitors. Nature Medicine 19, 14011409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, CX et al. (2015) Mechanisms of aromatase inhibitor resistance. Nature Reviews Cancer 15, 261275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyamoto, DT et al. (2015) RNA-Seq of single prostate CTCs implicates noncanonical Wnt signaling in antiandrogen resistance. Science 349, 13511356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaffer, SM et al. (2017) Rare cell variability and drug-induced reprogramming as a mode of cancer drug resistance. Nature 546, 431435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, A et al. (2018) Longitudinal single-cell RNA sequencing of patient-derived primary cells reveals drug-induced infidelity in stem cell hierarchy. Nature Communications 9, 4931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, C et al. (2018) Chemoresistance evolution in triple-negative breast cancer delineated by single-cell sequencing. Cell 173, 879893. e13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, SR et al. (2020) Single-cell transcriptome analysis of colon cancer cell response to 5-fluorouracil-induced DNA damage. Cell Reports 32, 108077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nawroth, R, Weckermann, D and Retz, M (2014) [Prostate and bladder cancer: detection of disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow]. Urologe A 53, 514518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamada, S et al. (2007) Clinical implications of peritoneal cytology in potentially resectable pancreatic cancer: positive peritoneal cytology may not confer an adverse prognosis. Annals of Surgery 246, 254258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naz, S et al. (2015) Role of peritoneal washing cytology in ovarian malignancies: correlation with histopathological parameters. World Journal of Surgical Oncology 13, 315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledergor, G et al. (2018) Single cell dissection of plasma cell heterogeneity in symptomatic and asymptomatic myeloma. Nature Medicine 24, 18671876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pantel, K, Alix-Panabières, C and Riethdorf, S (2009) Cancer micrometastases. Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 6, 339351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, YF et al. (2021) Dissecting spatial heterogeneity and the immune-evasion mechanism of CTCs by single-cell RNA-seq in hepatocellular carcinoma. Nature Communications 12, 4091.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barros-Silva, JD et al. (2018) Single-cell analysis identifies LY6D as a marker linking castration-resistant prostate luminal cells to prostate progenitors and cancer. Cell Reports 25, 35043518. e6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernard, V et al. (2019) Single-cell transcriptomics of pancreatic cancer precursors demonstrates epithelial and microenvironmental heterogeneity as an early event in neoplastic progression. Clinical Cancer Research 25, 21942205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexander, J et al. (2018) Utility of single-cell genomics in diagnostic evaluation of prostate cancer. Cancer Research 78, 348358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bian, S et al. (2018) Single-cell multiomics sequencing and analyses of human colorectal cancer. Science 362, 10601063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, SP et al. (2019) Single-cell transcriptomics reveals multi-step adaptations to endocrine therapy. Nature Communications 10, 3840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azizi, E et al. (2018) Single-cell map of diverse immune phenotypes in the breast tumor microenvironment. Cell 174, 12931308. e36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, Z et al. (2019) Single-cell transcriptomic map of the human and mouse bladders. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 30, 21592176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Y et al. (2012) Single-cell sequencing analysis characterizes common and cell-lineage-specific mutations in a muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Gigascience 1, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Z et al. (2017) Single-cell sequencing reveals variants in ARID1A, GPRC5A and MLL2 driving self-renewal of human bladder cancer stem cells. European Urology 71, 812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanaka, N et al. (2018) Single-cell RNA-seq analysis reveals the platinum resistance gene COX7B and the surrogate marker CD63. Cancer Medicine 7, 61936204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, HW et al. (2020) Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the tumor microenvironment and facilitates strategic choices to circumvent treatment failure in a chemorefractory bladder cancer patient. Genome Medicine 12, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, DY et al. (2020) Intratumoral CD4(+) T cells mediate anti-tumor cytotoxicity in human bladder cancer. Cell 181, 16121625.e13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, MR et al. (2017) Novel risk models for early detection and screening of ovarian cancer. Oncotarget 8, 785797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allin, DM et al. (2018) Circulating tumour DNA is a potential biomarker for disease progression and response to targeted therapy in advanced thyroid cancer. European Journal of Cancer 103, 165175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, KT et al. (2015) Single-cell mRNA sequencing identifies subclonal heterogeneity in anti-cancer drug responses of lung adenocarcinoma cells. Genome Biology 16, 127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Isolation methods of single-cell sequencing

Figure 1

Table 2. Single-cell multi-omics technologies

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Application of single-cell sequencing in cancer research.

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Apllication of single-cell sequencing in bladder cancer.