Sample Preparation Methods for Targeted Single-Cell Proteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide We compared three cell isolation and two proteomic sample preparation methods for single-cell and near-single-cell analysis. Whole blood was used to quantify hemoglobin (Hb) and glycated-Hb (gly-Hb) in erythrocytes using targeted mass spectrometry and stable isotope-labeled standard peptides. Each method differed in cell isolation and sample preparation as follows: 1) FACS and automated preparation in one-pot for trace samples (autoPOTS); 2) limited dilution via microscopy and a novel rapid one-pot sample preparation method that circumvented the need for the solid-phase extraction, low-volume liquid handling instrumentation and humidified incubation chamber; and 3) CellenONE-based cell isolation and the same one-pot sample preparation method used for limited dilution. Only the CellenONE device routinely isolated single-cells from which Hb was measured to be 540–660 amol per red blood cell (RBC), which was comparable to the calculated SI reference range for mean corpuscular hemoglobin (390–540 amol/RBC). FACSAria sorter and limited dilution could routinely isolate single-digit cell numbers, to reliably quantify CMV-Hb heterogeneity. Finally, we observed that repeated measures, using 5–25 RBCs obtained from N = 10 blood donors, could be used as an alternative and more efficient strategy than single RBC analysis to measure protein heterogeneity, which revealed multimodal distribution, unique for each individual.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".