Unlocking the potential of microfluidics in mass spectrometry-based immunopeptidomics for tumor antigen discovery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of tumor-specific antigens (TSAs) is critical for developing effective cancer immunotherapies. Mass spectrometry (MS)-based immunopeptidomics has emerged as a powerful tool for identifying TSAs as physical molecules. However, current immunopeptidomics platforms face challenges in measuring low-abundance TSAs in a precise, sensitive, and reproducible manner from small needle-tissue biopsies (<1 mg). Inspired by recent advances in single-cell proteomics, microfluidics technology offers a promising solution to these limitations by providing improved isolation of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-associated peptides with higher sensitivity. In this context, we highlight the challenges in sample preparation and the rationale for developing microfluidics technology in immunopeptidomics. Additionally, we provide an overview of promising microfluidic methods, including microchip pillar arrays, valved-based systems, droplet microfluidics, and digital microfluidics, and discuss the latest research on their application in MS-based immunopeptidomics and single-cell proteomics.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it