Analysis of Microdissected Cells by Two-Dimensional LC-MS Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser capture microdissection (LCM) is a powerful tool that enables the isolation of specific cell types from tissue sections, overcoming the problem of tissue heterogeneity and contamination. We combined the LCM with isotope-coded affinity tag (ICAT) technology and two-dimensional liquid chromatography to investigate the qualitative and quantitative proteomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The effects of three different histochemical stains on tissue sections have been compared, and toluidine blue stain was proved as the most suitable stain for LCM followed by proteomic analysis. The solubilized proteins from microdissected HCC and non-HCC hepatocytes were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed with two-dimensional liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (2D-LC-MS/MS) alone or coupled with cleavable isotope-coded affinity tag (cICAT) labeling technology. A total of 644 proteins were qualitatively identified and 261 proteins were unambiguously quantified. These results showed that the clinical proteomic method using LCM coupled with ICAT and 2D-LC-MS/MS can carry out not only large-scale but also accurate qualitative and quantitative analysis.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".