High-Throughput Screening of One-Bead–One-Compound Peptide Libraries Using Intact Cells
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Screening approaches based on one-bead-one-compound (OBOC) combinatorial libraries have facilitated the discovery of novel peptide ligands for cellular targeting in cancer and other diseases. Recognition of cell surface proteins is optimally achieved using live cells, yet screening intact cell populations is time-consuming and inefficient. Here, we evaluate the Complex Object Parametric Analyzer and Sorter (COPAS) large particle biosorter for high-throughput sorting of bead-bound human cell populations. When a library of RGD-containing peptides was screened against human cancer cells that express αvβ3 integrin, it was found that bead-associated cells are rapidly dissociated when sorted through the COPAS instrument. When the bound cells were reversibly cross-linked onto the beads, however, we demonstrated that cell/bead mixtures can be sorted quickly and accurately. This reversible cross-linking approach is compatible with matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry-based peptide sequence deconvolution. This approach should allow one to rapidly screen an OBOC library and identify novel peptide ligands against cell surface targets in their native conformation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it