Necessity and Challenges of Sample Preconcentration in Analysis of Multiple MicroRNAs by Capillary Electrophoresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thousands of putative microRNA (miRNA)-based cancer biomarkers have been reported, but none has been validated for approval by the Food and Drug Administration. One of the reasons for this alarming discrepancy is the lack of a method that is sufficiently robust for carrying out validation studies, which may require analysis of samples from hundreds of patients across multiple institutions and pooling the results together. The capillary electrophoresis (CE)-based hybridization assay proved to be more robust than reversed transcription polymerase chain reaction (the current standard), but its limit of quantification (LOQ) exceeds 10 pM while miRNA concentrations in cell lysates are below 1 pM. Thus, CE-based separation must be preceded by on-column sample preconcentration. Here, we explain the challenges of sample preconcentration for CE-based miRNA analyses and introduce a preconcentration method that can suit CE-based miRNA analysis utilizing peptide nucleic acid (PNA) hybridization probes. The method combines field-amplified sample stacking (FASS) with isotachophoresis (ITP). We proved that FASS-ITP could retain and concentrate both near-neutral PNA with highly negatively charged PNA-miRNA hybrids. We demonstrated that preconcentration by FASS-ITP could be combined with the CE-based separation of the unreacted PNA probes from the PNA-miRNA hybrids and facilitate improvement in LOQ by a factor of 140, down to 0.1 pM. Finally, we applied FASS-ITP-CE for the simultaneous detection of two miRNAs in crude cell lysates and proved that the method was robust when used in complex biological matrices. The 140-fold improvement in LOQ and the robustness to biological matrices will significantly expand the applicability of CE-based miRNA analysis, bringing it closer to becoming a practical tool for validation of miRNA biomarkers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".