Strategies for optimizing CITE-seq for human islets and other tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining the immunological landscape of human tissue is an important area of research, but challenges include the impact of tissue disaggregation on cell phenotypes and the low abundance of immune cells in many tissues. Here, we describe methods to troubleshoot and standardize Cellular Indexing of Transcriptomes and Epitopes by sequencing (CITE-seq) for studies involving enzymatic digestion of human tissue. We tested epitope susceptibility of 92 antibodies commonly used to differentiate immune lineages and cell states on human peripheral blood mononuclear cells following treatment with an enzymatic digestion cocktail used to isolate islets. We observed CD4, CD8a, CD25, CD27, CD120b, CCR4, CCR6, and PD1 display significant sensitivity to enzymatic treatment, effects that often could not be overcome with alternate antibodies. Comparison of flow cytometry-based CITE-seq antibody titrations and sequencing data supports that for the majority of antibodies, flow cytometry accurately predicts optimal antibody concentrations for CITE-seq. Comparison by CITE-seq of immune cells in enzymatically digested islet tissue and donor-matched spleen not treated with enzymes revealed little digestion-induced epitope cleavage, suggesting increased sensitivity of CITE-seq and/or that the islet structure may protect resident immune cells from enzymes. Within islets, CITE-seq identified immune cells difficult to identify by transcriptional signatures alone, such as distinct tissue-resident T cell subsets, mast cells, and innate lymphoid cells (ILCs). Collectively this study identifies strategies for the rational design and testing of CITE-seq antibodies for single-cell studies of immune cells within islets and other tissues.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".