Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 25;53(3):403–411. doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00790-6

Extended Data Fig. 2. Benchmarking comparisons of runtime and memory usage for ArchR, Signac, and SnapATAC.

Extended Data Fig. 2

a, Schematic describing the individual benchmarking steps compared across ArchR (blue), Signac (purple), and SnapATAC (orange) for (1) Data Import, (2) Dimensionality Reduction and Clustering, and (3) Gene Score Matrix Creation. b-i, Comparison of ArchR, Signac, and SnapATAC for run time and peak memory usage for the analysis of (b) ~20,000 cells from the PBMCs dataset using 128 GB of RAM and 20 cores (plot corresponds to Fig. 1b), (c) ~70,000 cells from the PBMCs dataset using 32 GB of RAM and 8 cores (plot corresponds to Fig. 1c), (d-e) ~10,000 cells from the PBMCs dataset using (d) 32 GB of RAM and 8 cores or (e) 128 GB of RAM and 20 cores, (f-g) ~30,000 cells from the PBMCs dataset using (f) 32 GB of RAM and 8 cores or (g) 128 GB of RAM and 20 cores, and (h-i) ~30,000 cells from the bone marrow dataset using (h) 32 GB of RAM and 8 cores or (i) 128 GB of RAM and 20 cores. Dots represent individual replicates of benchmarking analysis (N = 3). OoM corresponds to out of memory. j, Benchmarks from ArchR for run time and peak memory usage for the analysis of ~70,000 cells from the sci-ATAC-seq mouse atlas dataset (N = 13 tissues) for (left) 32 GB of RAM with 8 cores and (right) 128 GB of RAM with 20 cores. Dots represent individual replicates of benchmarking analysis. k, t-SNE of mouse atlas scATAC-seq data (N = 64,286 cells) colored by individual samples.