MicroPOTS Analysis of Barrett’s Esophageal Cell Line Models Identifies Proteomic Changes after Physiologic and Radiation Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Moving from macroscale preparative systems in proteomics to micro- and nanotechnologies offers researchers the ability to deeply profile smaller numbers of cells that are more likely to be encountered in clinical settings. Herein a recently developed microscale proteomic method, microdroplet processing in one pot for trace samples (microPOTS), was employed to identify proteomic changes in ∼200 Barrett’s esophageal cells following physiologic and radiation stress exposure. From this small population of cells, microPOTS confidently identified >1500 protein groups, and achieved a high reproducibility with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient value of R > 0.9 and over 50% protein overlap from replicates. A Barrett’s cell line model treated with either lithocholic acid (LCA) or X-ray had 21 (e.g., ASNS, RALY, FAM120A, UBE2M, IDH1, ESD) and 32 (e.g., GLUL, CALU, SH3BGRL3, S100A9, FKBP3, AGR2) overexpressed proteins, respectively, compared to the untreated set. These results demonstrate the ability of microPOTS to routinely identify and quantify differentially expressed proteins from limited numbers of cells.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".