Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36237552›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Quantitative proteomics of small numbers of closely-related cells: Selection of the optimal method for a clinical setting.

Kyra van der Pan, Sara Kassem, Indu Khatri, Arnoud H de Ru, George M C Janssen, Rayman T N Tjokrodirijo, Fadi Al Makindji, Eftychia Stavrakaki, Anniek L de Jager, Brigitta A E Naber and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Kyra van der PanDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Sara KassemDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Indu KhatriDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Arnoud H de RuCenter for Proteomics and Metabolomics, LUMC, Leiden, Netherlands.
George M C JanssenCenter for Proteomics and Metabolomics, LUMC, Leiden, Netherlands.
Rayman T N TjokrodirijoCenter for Proteomics and Metabolomics, LUMC, Leiden, Netherlands.
Fadi Al MakindjiDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Eftychia StavrakakiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Anniek L de JagerDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Brigitta A E NaberDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Inge F de LaatDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Alesha LouisDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Wouter B L van den BosscheDepartment of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Lisette B VogelezangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Rutger K BalversDepartment of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Martine L M LamfersDepartment of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Peter A van VeelenCenter for Proteomics and Metabolomics, LUMC, Leiden, Netherlands.
Alberto OrfaoTranslational and Clinical Research Program, Cancer Research Center (IBMCC; University of Salamanca-CSIC), Salamanca, Spain.
Jacques J M van DongenDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Cristina TeodosioDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Paula DíezDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLErasmus MC · NLNetherlands Metabolomics Centre · NLCentro de Investigación del Cáncer · ESUniversidad de Salamanca · ESErasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics profiling has undoubtedly increased the knowledge about cellular processes and functions. However, its applicability for paucicellular sample analyses is currently limited. Although new approaches have been developed for single-cell studies, most of them have not (yet) been standardized and/or require highly specific (often home-built) devices, thereby limiting their broad implementation, particularly in non-specialized settings. To select an optimal MS-oriented proteomics approach applicable in translational research and clinical settings, we assessed 10 different sample preparation procedures in paucicellular samples of closely-related cell types. Particularly, five cell lysis protocols using different chemistries and mechanical forces were combined with two sample clean-up techniques (C18 filter- and SP3-based), followed by tandem mass tag (TMT)-based protein quantification. The evaluation was structured in three phases: first, cell lines from hematopoietic (THP-1) and non-hematopoietic (HT-29) origins were used to test the approaches showing the combination of a urea-based lysis buffer with the SP3 bead-based clean-up system as the best performer. Parameters such as reproducibility, accessibility, spatial distribution, ease of use, processing time and cost were considered. In the second phase, the performance of the method was tested on maturation-related cell populations: three different monocyte subsets from peripheral blood and, for the first time, macrophages/microglia (MAC) from glioblastoma samples, together with T cells from both tissues. The analysis of 50,000 cells down to only 2,500 cells revealed different protein expression profiles associated with the distinct cell populations. Accordingly, a closer relationship was observed between non-classical monocytes and MAC, with the latter showing the co-expression of M1 and M2 macrophage markers, although pro-tumoral and anti-inflammatory proteins were more represented. In the third phase, the results were validated by high-end spectral flow cytometry on paired monocyte/MAC samples to further determine the sensitivity of the MS approach selected. Finally, the feasibility of the method was proven in 194 additional samples corresponding to 38 different cell types, including cells from different tissue origins, cellular lineages, maturation stages and stimuli. In summary, we selected a reproducible, easy-to-implement sample preparation method for MS-based proteomic characterization of paucicellular samples, also applicable in the setting of functionally closely-related cell populations.

Indexed as

closely-related cellslow cell numbersmacrophagemonocytepaucicellular clinical samplesproteome characterization

Identifiers

PMID36237552
PMCPMC9553008
OpenAlexW4297369703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.