A simple method to quantify protein abundances from one thousand cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The rise of single-cell transcriptomics has created an urgent need for similar approaches that use a minimal number of cells to quantify expression levels of proteins. We integrated and optimized multiple recent developments to establish a proteomics workflow to quantify proteins from as few as 1,000 mammalian stem cells. The method uses chemical peptide labeling, does not require specific equipment other than cell lysis tools, and quantifies >2,500 proteins with high reproducibility. We validated the method by comparing mouse embryonic stem cells and in vitro differentiated motor neurons. We identify differentially expressed proteins with small fold-changes, and a dynamic range in abundance similar to that of standard methods. Protein abundance measurements obtained with our protocol compare well to corresponding transcript abundance and to measurements using standard inputs. The protocol is also applicable to other systems, such as FACS-purified cells from the tunicate Ciona . Therefore, we offer a straightforward and accurate method to acquire proteomics data from minimal input samples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".