Single-cell Gene Expression Using Multiplex RT-qPCR to Characterize Heterogeneity of Rare Lymphoid Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene expression heterogeneity is an interesting feature to investigate in lymphoid populations. Gene expression in these cells varies during cell activation, stress, or stimulation. Single-cell multiplex gene expression enables the simultaneous assessment of tens of genes1,2,3. At the single-cell level, multiplex gene expression determines population heterogeneity4,5. It allows for the distinction of population heterogeneity by determining both the probable mix of diverse precursor stages among mature cells and also the diversity of cell responses to stimuli. Innate lymphoid cells (ILC) have been recently described as a population of innate effectors of the immune response6,7. In this protocol, cell heterogeneity of the ILC hepatic compartment is investigated during homeostasis. Currently, the most widely used technique to assess gene expression is RT-qPCR. This method measures gene expression only one gene at a time. Additionally, this method cannot estimate heterogeneity of gene expression, since multiple cells are needed for one test. This leads to the measurement of the average gene expression of the population. When assessing large numbers of genes, RT-qPCR becomes a time-, reagent-, and sample-consuming method. Hence, the trade-offs limit the number of genes or cell populations that can be evaluated, increasing the risk of missing the global picture. This manuscript describes how single-cell multiplex RT-qPCR can be used to overcome these limitations. This technique has benefited from recent microfluidics technological advances1,2. Reactions occurring in multiplex RT-qPCR chips do not exceed the nanoliter-level. Hence, single-cell gene expression, as well as simultaneous multiple gene expression, can be performed in a reagent-, sample-, and cost-effective manner. It is possible to test cell gene signature heterogeneity at the clonal level between cell subsets within a population at different developmental stages or under different conditions4,5. Working on rare populations with large numbers of conditions at the single-cell level is no longer a restriction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".