PiP‐Plex: A Particle‐in‐Particle System for Multiplexed Quantification of Proteins Secreted by Single Cells
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
Abstract Cell signaling is modulated by the secretion of various proteins, which can be used to infer a cell's phenotype. However, these proteins cannot be readily detected in multiplex by commonly used methods at the single‐cell level. Here we present PiP‐plex a particles‐in‐particle (PiPs) system for multiplex protein secretion analysis by confocal microscopy. PiP‐plex‐comprises (i) fluorescence intensity barcoded microparticles (BMPs) co‐entrapped with (ii) a single cell inside an alginate hydrogel particle. We found that PiPs maintained >90% cellular viability and allowed live cells retrieval. A seven‐plex fluorescent barcoding and concomitant sandwich immunoassay in PiPs was developed with limits of detection ranging from 0.8 pg mL −1 to 2 ng mL −1 depending on the protein. PiP‐plex assays were benchmarked with bulk immunoassays and found to rival or outperform them. Proteins secreted by single THP‐1 cells upon exposure to lipopolysaccharide were measured by PiP‐plex and varying cell responses detected, including a significant increase in MIP‐1α, TNF‐α, and IL‐17A; MIP‐1α and IL‐17A were the most frequently secreted cytokines, while other cytokines were typically co‐secreted. Using PiP‐plex, we analyzed ≈750 THP‐1 cells, showcasing its potential for characterizing cells and cell‐based therapeutics for e.g. cancer immunotherapies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it