Direct Analysis and MALDI Imaging of Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Tissue Sections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formalin fixation, generally followed by paraffin embedding, is the standard and well-established processing method employed by pathologist. This treatment conserves and stabilizes biopsy samples for years. Analysis of FFPE tissues from biopsy libraries has been, so far, a challenge for proteomics biomarker studies. Herein, we present two methods for the direct analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues by MALDI-MS. The first is based on the use of a reactive matrix, 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine, useful for FFPE tissues stored less than 1 year. The second approach is applicable for all FFPE tissues regardless of conservation time. The strategy is based on in situ enzymatic digestion of the tissue section after paraffin removal. In situ digestion can be performed on a specific area of the tissue as well as on a very small area (microdigestion). Combining automated microdigestion of a predefined tissue array with either in situ extraction prior to classical nanoLC/MS-MS analysis or automated microspotting of MALDI matrix according to the same array allows the identification of both proteins by nanoLC-nanoESI and MALDI imaging. When adjacent tissue sections are used, it is, thus, possible to correlate protein identification and molecular imaging. These combined approaches, along with FFPE tissue analysis provide access to massive amounts of archived samples in the clinical pathology setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".