ArticleSLAS technology2021
Summit: Automated Analysis of Arrayed Single-Cell Gel Electrophoresis.
Article in SLAS technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Segmentation-based analysis of single-cell immunoblots.Electrophoresis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
New pipelines are required to automate the quantitation of emerging high-throughput electrophoretic (EP) assessment of DNA damage, or proteoform expression in single cells. EP cytometry consists of thousands of Western blots performed on a microscope slide-sized gel microwell array for single cells. Thus, EP cytometry images pose an analysis challenge that blends requirements for accurate and reproducible analysis encountered for both standard Western blots and protein microarrays. Here, we introduce the Summit algorithm to automate array segmentation, peak background subtraction, and Gaussian fitting for EP cytometry. The data structure storage of parameters allows users to perform quality control on identically processed data, yielding a ~6.5% difference in coefficient of quartile variation (CQV) of protein peak area under the curve (AUC) distributions measured by four users. Further, inspired by investigations of background subtraction methods to reduce technical variation in protein microarray measurements, we aimed to understand the trade-offs between EP cytometry analysis throughput and variation. We found an 11%-50% increase in protein peaks that passed quality control with a subtraction method similar to microarray "average on-boundary" versus an axial subtraction method. The background subtraction method only mildly influences AUC CQV, which varies between 1% and 4.5%. Finally, we determined that the narrow confidence interval for peak location and peak width parameters from Gaussian fitting yield minimal uncertainty in protein sizing. The AUC CQV differed by only ~1%-2% when summed over the peak width bounds versus the 95% peak width confidence interval. We expect Summit to be broadly applicable to other arrayed EP separations, or traditional Western blot analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.